J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is defendants' Second appeal against whom suit for ejectment and recovery of rent has been decreed by the two Courts below.
(2.) THE plaintiff let out the ground floor of the shop in dispute on May, 30, 1983 at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- to Pawan Kumar, defendant. According to the plaint, the said defendant in violation of the terms of the tenancy sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2 without the consent of the plaintiff; the tenancy was terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and he filed the present suit within a period of ten years from the completion of the building as the same was exempted from the purview of the Rent Act. The suit was contested inter alia on the grounds that the premises were never sub-let as alleged. Moreover, the shop in question was constructed prior to March, 1983 and therefore, the suit as such was not maintainable. The trial Court found that the shop in dispute was reconstructed in March, 1983 and therefore, the suit filed on July 20, 1984 was maintainable. Since the defendants had denied the title of the plaintiff, it was found that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop in dispute and the defendant was in possession as tenant under him. Consequently, decree for ejectment along with a sum of Rs. 1300/- for use and occupation was passed by the trial Court vide order dated July 28, 1986. In appeal, the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned District Judge found that "it is the case of the plaintiff that he had reconstructed the shop in March, 1983. The second defendant simply denied this fact. He did not lead any evidence to the contrary. The statements of the witnesses of the plaintiff, as have been discussed above, have not been rebutted and to my mind these witnesses are reliable and trustworthy. I, therefore, agree with the learned trial Court in holding that the plaintiff had reconstructed the shop in dispute in the month of March, 1983."
(3.) AT the time of motion hearing there was a controversy as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree or not in case the period of ten years has elapsed after the construction was completed during the pendency of the proceedings. The matter has now been settled by the Supreme Court in a case reported as Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, 1988(2) RCR 423 (SC); 1988 HRR 627, in which it has been held that if a suit of eviction was filed within the stipulated period of 10 years, the said exemption under Section 1(3) of the Act will continue to be available until suit is disposed of or adjudicated. Once rights crystalise, the adjudication must be in accordance with law.;