NIRMAL YADAV, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal challenging the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below holding that defendant- tenant is liable to be ejected from the demised premises as the respondent- landlord has proved termination of tenancy by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plea taken by the appellant before the 1st Appellate Court that no decree of ejectment against him could be passed as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Rent Act') has been invoked before expiry of 10 years' period of exemption granted vide notification dated 9.2.1984 issued by the Punjab Government has been rejected.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff Mani Ram filed a civil suit seeking ejectment of the appellant-defendant from demised premises i.e. House No. HL-206, Phase-II, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Defendant was inducted as tenant by the plaintiff through Mohinder Singh, husband of his wife's sister, on a monthly rent of Rs. 320/-. The appellant-tenant did not bother to make the payment of rent regularly. He also did not prove to be a good tenant and, therefore, the plaintiff asked him to vacate the house and also to make the payment of rent due towards him. Accordingly, statutory notice was served upon the defendant terminating his tenancy, as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The suit was contested by the defendant, mainly, on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He further challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit asserting that plaintiff is not the owner of the demised premises. According to him, the property belongs to the Punjab Housing Board. He also denied the service of notice issued by the plaintiff. Service of notice sent by Mohinder Singh through his counsel Shivdev Singh was, however, admitted by the defendant. The defendant further pleaded that he had been paying rent to Mohinder Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : "1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties ? OPA. 2. Whether valid notice terminating the tenancy has been served upon the defendant ? OPA 3. Whether the provision of section 106 TPA does not apply to the suit property ? OPR 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPR. 5. Relief." The trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and decreed the suit for ejectment with costs. The defendant challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree before the District Judge, Rupnagar, inter alia, pleading that notification dated 9.2.1984 has expired on 31.3.1995 and provisions of Rent Act have become applicable, therefore, the suit stands abated. The 1st Appellate Court, after considering contentions of the parties, affirmed the view taken by the trial court. The 1st Appellate Court rejected the aforesaid plea of the defendant with regard to applicability of Rent Act with the following findings : "9. In my view the exemption granted from the provisions of the Rent Act vide notification dated 9th February 1984 will not become ineffective and unoperative (sic), simply because the exemption granted has expired on 31.3.95. In my view all the actions taken during the period from 9.2.84 to 31.3.95 are out of the purview of the Rent Act. To this view I find support from the Authority Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, 1998(2) RCR(Rent) 423 (SC) : (AIR 1988 SC 2031) where it was held as under : "Bearing in mind the well settled principles that the rights of the parties crystallize to the date of the institution of the suit the meaningful construction of the provision granting exemption to a building from operation of the Act must be that the exemption would apply for a period of 10 years and will continue to be available until suit for eviction is disposed of or adjudicated. Such suit or proceeding must be instituted within the stipulated period of 10 years. Once rights crystallize for the adjudication the 10 years exemption or holiday from the application of the Rent Act would become illusory, if the suit has to be filed within that time and be disposed of finally. It is common knowledge that unless a suit is instituted soon after the date of letting would never be disposed of within 10 years and even then within that time it may not be disposed of. That will make the 10 years holidays from the Rent Act illusory and provide no incentive to the landlords to build new houses to solve problems of shortage of houses. The purpose of legislation would thus be defeated. Purposive interpretation in a social amelioration legislation is an imperative irrespective of anything else."
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, I am of the view there is no merit in this appeal. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been proved between the parties. It has further been found that the suit was filed during the period of exemption and, therefore, the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable. The issue with regard to payment of rent does not survive. The main argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the period of 10 years has expired during the pendency of appeal and the provisions of the Rent Act have become applicable. In support, the learned counsel referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of K. Balakrishna Rao and others v. Haji Abdulla Sait and others, 1980(1) Rent Control Reporter 374 and Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, 1990(1) RCR(Rent) 423 : (1990-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 182.;