J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is defendant's appeal whom the suit for ejectment has been decreed by the trial Court.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the plaintiff is the owner of the house, in dispute, i.e. house No. 2716, Section 38-C, Chandigarh. The agreed rate of rent payable thereto by the defendant to the plaintiff was Rs. 975 per month. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the tenancy of the defendant comprised the entire house, i.e. the ground floor and the first floor except one room on the first floor adjacent to the staircase. The tenancy was monthly commencing from the first day of each calendar month and ending on the last day of each calendar month. The plaintiff did not want the defendant to be a tenant on the demised premises any longer. The premises, in question were exempt from the operation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, (hereinafter called the Act) because the plaintiff was given sewerage connection by the Estate Office on June 1. 1978. The suit was filed on September 23, 1982, within the period of exemption. The plaintiff issue noticed dated August 12, 1982, terminating defendant's tenancy. The said notice was duly served on the defendant on August 18, 1982. It was specifically pleaded therein that after the termination of the tenancy, the plaintiff shall be entitled to damages at double the rate of rent i.e., Rs. 1,950 per month for the period the defendant held the premises contumaciously. The defendant refused to vacate the house; hence the present suit. In the written statement, the defendant denied that the building was exempt from the provisions of the Act. It was pleaded that at the time of the inception of the tenancy, it was agreed between the parties to give one month's notice on either side for the termination of the tenancy and as such, the notice sent to her by the plaintiff was illegal and invalid. It was also asserted that the rent up to November, 1983, had already been paid by her to the plaintiff in compliance of the orders of the Court. It was further averred that she was the tenant on the entire house, i.e. the entire ground floor and the entire first floor. Objections were also taken and that the suit was bad for partial ejectment. In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the allegations made in the plaint were reiterated and the contrary version pleaded by the defendant was denied. It was also pleaded that even if it was held that one room on the first floor adjacent to the staircase was also a part of the demised premises the plaintiff be granted the decree for the eviction of the tenant from the said premises also. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the demised premises are exempt from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act ? 2. Whether a valid notice terminating the tenancy was served before the institution of the present suit ? 2A. Whether the suit is for partial ejectment? If so, its effect ? 3. Relief. Under issue No. 1, the trial Court found that the premises, in dispute, were exempt from the provisions of the Act. Under issue Nos. 2A, it held that the tenancy of the defendant comprised of the ground floor and the first floor of the premises, in question excluding one room on the first floor adjacent to the staircase. Under issue No. 1 the trial Court found that a valid notice terminating the tenancy was served on the defendant. As a result, the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in appeal to this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant contented that since the period of five years' exemption had expired during the pendency of the suit, no decree for ejectment could be passed in favour of the plaintiff even if the building was exempt from the purview of the Act. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 817 : 1984(1) RCR 301 SC I do not find any merit in this contention in view of the specific notification dated September 24, 1973, issued by the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh in this regard. This matter stands fully discussed in the judgment rendered by me earlier 1986(1) RCR 280 in Regular Second Appeal No. 599 of 1985 (Shri Kanhiya Lal Aggarwal v. Om Parkash Rajput), decided on September 20, 1985, wherein the Supreme Court decision in Vineet Kumar's case (supra) has also been noticed. The ratio of the above said Supreme Court decision has no applicability to the cases like the one in hand. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to rise any meaningful argument in this behalf.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the whole houses was rented out to the defendant whereas the plaintiff in the ejectment application claimed the eviction of the defendant from the building in question, excluding one room of the first floor thereof adjacent to the staircase. Thus argued the learned counsel the suit, was liable to be dismissed on that score. In support of the contention, the learned relied upon Kanwar Behari v. Smt. Vindhya Devi, AIR 1966 Punjab 481, Miss S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 438; Panna Lal v. Dev Jit, 1976 Rent Control Journal 817 and Smt. Roshan Devi v. Arjun Dass Gupta, 1975 Rent Control Journal 494.;