Mehar Singh, J. - (1.) THE demised house is situated on Commercial Road of Ambala Cantonment, according to the clear statement in paragraph 1 of the eviction application of the landlord, which fact was admitted in the written reply of the tenant So the demised house is situated within Ambala Cantonment.
(2.) THE landlord sought eviction on the ground of non -payment of arrears of rent, and he succeeded both before the Rent Controller and the appellate authority on the ground that the tender made by the tenant being conditional did not fulfil the requirements of proviso to clause (i) of section 132 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. III of 1949). This is a tenant's revision application against the order of the appellate authority upholding his eviction from the demised house and the order of the Rent Controller. In the East Punjab Act No. III of 1949, sub section (2) of section 1 says that the Act 'extends to all urban areas in Punjab, but nothing herein contained shall be deemed to effect the regulation of house accommodation in any cantonment area.' An argument was earlier raised in Rajeshwar Prashad v. Bansi Lal (1960) 62 P. L. R. 143, that because of this provision in this Act, it did not apply to cantonment area, but the learned Judges in the Division Bench decided, following A.C. Patel v. Vishvanath Chada : A.I.R. 1954 Bom. 204, that the argument was not valid because the expression 'regulation of house accommodation in any cantonment area" came within the legislative competence of a State legislature in List II, entry 18. So the argument did not prevail with the learned Judges. While this revision application has been pending, this matter has come up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundhri Devi and another 1969 (1) S.C.A. 671. and their Lordships have held that that expression comes within entry 3 of the Union List 1 in Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the power of legislation with regard to the same resides in the Parliament and not in a State Legislature. So, East Punjab Act No. III of 1949 does not extend to a cantonment area and, as stated, the demised house is situated in the Ambala Cantonment area It is in this approach that the learned counsel's tenant has not advanced any argument on the question whether in this case the tender made by the tenant was or was not conditional.
(3.) NOBODY appears on behalf of the respondent, landlord inspite of service, but in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case must cited above, the orders of the authorities below cannot be maintained. So this revision application of the tenant is accepted, the orders of the authorities below are reversed, and the eviction by the landlord is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, their is no order in regard to costs, and particulars as nobody on the side of the landlord appears, at this stage, to contest this application.;