Civil Court Upholds Jurisdiction in Ejectment Suit

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain and decree the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The statutory changes and amendments did not affect the validity of the notification issued under the old Act, and rights and liabilities under the repealed law continued in force. The judgment stressed interpreting statutory provisions to uphold civil court jurisdiction and valid decrees.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Impact of statutory changes on the right of a landlord to evict a tenant from a non-residential building.
2. Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit for ejectment.
3. Validity and effect of the notification issued under Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
4. Interpretation of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and its amendments.
5. Continuation of rights and liabilities under the repealed law.

Detailed Analysis

1. Impact of Statutory Changes on the Right of a Landlord to Evict a Tenant
The court examined the effects of statutory changes on the landlord's right to evict tenants from non-residential buildings. The Plaintiff-Respondent filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent, asserting that the shop was exempted from the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, due to a notification issued under Section 3 of the Act. The exemption was because the building was constructed in 1969.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Entertain the Suit for Ejectment
The Appellant contested the suit, arguing that the rent restriction laws applied, and thus, the civil court had no jurisdiction. The court found that the civil suit was properly entertained by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Fatehabad, on August 2, 1973, and decreed on September 30, 1976. The new Act, amended in 1978, did not affect the jurisdiction of the civil courts as the notification exempting the building from the Act remained valid.

3. Validity and Effect of the Notification Issued Under Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
The Governor of Haryana issued a notification on October 22, 1971, exempting buildings constructed in 1968, 1969, and 1970 from the provisions of the Act for five years. The court held that the special jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was ousted by this notification, allowing landlords to approach ordinary civil courts for ejectment.

4. Interpretation of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and Its Amendments
The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, repealed the old Act but included provisions for exemptions similar to the old Act. The court interpreted Section 1(3)(ii) of the new Act, which exempted non-residential buildings completed after March 31, 1962, from its provisions. The 1978 amendment to the new Act, which recast Section 1(3), did not nullify the earlier exemptions granted under the old Act.

5. Continuation of Rights and Liabilities Under the Repealed Law
The court referred to Section 22 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, which maintains the validity of notifications issued under a repealed Act if they are not inconsistent with the new Act. The notification issued under the old Act was deemed consistent with the new Act and thus remained in force. The court concluded that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the notification from October 22, 1971, continued to be valid.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decree the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The statutory changes and the amendments to the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, did not affect the validity of the notification issued under the old Act, and the rights and liabilities under the repealed law continued to be in force. The judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory provisions to maintain the jurisdiction of civil courts and uphold valid decrees.

---