ANAND PRAKASH MALIK versus BHAGWANDAS

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 50 · Decided: 28-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANAND PRAKASH MALIK 
v. 
BHAGWANDAS 
APRIL 28, 1998 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: Section 13. 
Notification dated 22nd October 1971-Exemption from the provisions 
C of Act-Period of five years-Reckoning of-Eviction suit filed by respondent-
Landlord-Suit filed under General Law in 1976-Ground that provisions of 
Act inapplicable therefore suit was maintainable under General Law-Trial 
Court decided in favour of landlord and decreed the suit-First Appellate 
Court confirmed the decree-High Court held that under the Notification 
D exemption from the provisions of Act for five years was available from the 
date of notification and as such civil suit was maintainable-Appeal preferred 
by tenant-Held under the Notification exemption from the provisions of the 
Rent Act has been granted to buildings constructed during 1968, 1969 and 
1970 for a period of five years from the date of its "completion"-Period of 
exemption of five years has to be reckoned from the date of completion of the 
E construction and not from the date of the Notification-The building was 
constructed in December, 1968-The period of exemption, as such, expired 
in December, 1973-Thus exemption was not available on 30th March, 1976 
when the civil suit for eviction was filed-The suit filed by the landlord under 
the General laws for eviction of the tenant was not competent and the remedy 
F for eviction of the appellant lay under the Rent Restriction Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5953 of 
1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.90 of the Punjab & Haryana 
G High Court in R.S.A. No. 1796 of 1978. 
Harbans Lal and P.N. Puri Appell.ant. 
R.P. Gharma (NP) for the Respondent. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
50 
• 
.. 
A.P. MALIK v. BHAGWANDAS [A.S. ANAND, J.] 
51 
A.S. ANAND, J. Respondent filed a Civil Suit under the general law for A 
eviction of the appellant from shop No. 652/W-3 situate at Panipat and for 
recovery of Rs. 330 as compensation for use and occupation from January 
14, 1976 to March 13, 1976, besides a sum of Rs. 134.06 ps. as house tax and 
Rs. 15.94 ps. as notice expenses. 
According to the case set up by the landlord in the plaint after the B 
demised premises were vacated by an earlier tenant, Bhagwan Smgh, he 
reconstructed the shop after getting sanction from the Municipal Committee, 
Panipat. The construction was completed in December, 1968. The appellant-
tenant took the premises on rent for a period of 11 months with effect from 
14.2.1975@ Rs. 165 per month plus house tax after executing a rent note C 
dated 14.2.1975. 
After the expiry of the period of 11 months, the tenancy stood determined 
by afflux of time and the tenant who did not vacate was holding over the 
property in suit as a tenant-in-sufferance. lt was pleaded that a valid notice 
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued to the tenant D 
but despite that he did not vacate the premises. A specific plea was raised 
by the landlord to the effect that provisions of the Haryana Act No. 11 of 
1973 were not attracted and suit under the General law was competent. 
The tenant resisted the suit and in the written statement, apart from 
raising other objections regarding the maintainability of the suit in the present E 
form and the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit, it was asserted 
that the landlord had filed the ejectrnent petition under Section 13 of the East 
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in respect of the room upstairs and, 
therefore, the suit under the General law could not proceed. Service of any 
legal and valid notice was also denied. 
From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-
"(l) 
Whether the property in suit was constructed a new after 
31.3.1962 as alleged and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to 
try this suit ? OPP 
(2) 
Whether the tenancy of the defendant was determined by a 
valid notice as alleged and if so, to what effect ? OPP 
(3) 
Whether the defendant has been holding over the property after 
the expiry of the agreed period of lease as alleged? OPP 
F 
G 
(4) 
Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD H 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(5) 
Whether the plaintiff has filed petition under Section 13 of the 
B 
Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act representing the 
property No. 651 as alleged and if so, what effect ? O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.