Holding

The exemption notification of 31 January 1973 applies only to buildings that obtained sewerage or electric connections, or were occupied, on or after that date; since the building had electric connection before that date, the Act applies and the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit.

Summary

The respondent-landlady filed an eviction suit in a civil court against the appellant-tenant for arrears of rent. The dispute centered on whether the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act) applied to the building, which was claimed to be exempt under notifications dated 31 January 1973 and 24 September 1973 for a period of five years. The building received sewerage connection on 24 February 1973 but electric connection on 3 January 1973, i.e., before the cut‑off date of 31 January 1973. The Supreme Court held that, following Punjab Tin Supply Co. v. Central Government, the exemption applies only to buildings that obtained sewerage or electric connections, or were occupied, on or after 31 January 1973; therefore the exemption did not cover this building. Consequently, the Act remained applicable, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit, and the suit was not maintainable. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions of the first appellate court and the High Court, and confirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the suit.

Issues considered

Whether the exemption notification dated 31 January 1973 applies to the building in question.
From which date the five‑year exemption period should be computed – sewerage connection, electric connection, or occupation.
Whether the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 governs the eviction suit, thereby depriving the civil court of jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949s. 3

Subjects

rent controlevictionexemption notificationjurisdictioncivil courtlandlord‑tenantstatutory interpretation

Judgment

A MOHINDER LAL
v.
SMT SAROJ KUMAR! VERMA

JANLAR Y L3, 2000

B [S.R MATMLDAR AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction :

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 :

c Eviction suit-<3vil Court-Jurisdiction to entertain-- Exemption-From
the purview of Rent Control Act-Notifications dated 3 l. l.1973 and 24. 9.1973
exempted new building from the purview of the Act for a period of five
years-Mode of computation-Held : Where sewerage connection can be
given to a building the period of exemption is to be counted from the date
D when such connection is granted by the competent authority; where sewerage
connection cannot be granted, as for instance, in the case of booths the period
is to be counted from the date electric connection is first given by the
competent authority and in a case not covered under these two categories,
from the date the building is actually occupied--!/ the building is one to which
E sewerage connection can be granted, and in fact granted on 24.2.1973, the
period of 5 years' exemption has to be computed from that date-However,
Notification dated 31.1.1973 applies only to those buildings which are given
sewerage connection or electric connection or which are occupied as the case
may be on or after 31.1.1973 and not to those buildings which satisfy any of
the said conditions before 31.1.197~-Since electric connection was given to
F the building, of which the suit premises was part, on a date prior to 3 J.1.1973
the said exemption notification is not applicable to the suit premises-There-
fore, the Act will apply and civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
evictfon suit-The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to grant
protection to the tenants-There/ore, exemption notification, which takes out
G cases from the purview of the Act, should be strictly construed-Hence, the
decision in Punjab Tin Supply Co. 's case does not require reconsideration.

The respondent-landlady filed a suit before the civil court for evic-
tion of the appellant-tenant from the suit premises on account of arrears
of rent/damages. It was the case of the respondent that the building of
H which the suit premises was a part, was exempted from the provisions of
246
MOHL.._,DHR LAL v. SMT. S.K VERMA 247

the East Punjab t:rban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for a period of 5 years ;\ .
from the date of the sewerage connection which was given to the building
on 24.2.1973; that the period of exemption had not expired on the date of
filing of the suit and, therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain
the suit. On the other hand it was the case of the appellant that since the
electric connection to the building was given on 3.1.1973 the period of
exemption from the purview of the Act was to be computed from this date
B
and the suit, having been filed after 5 years from that date, was not
maintainable. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the first appel-
late court set aside the judgment of the trial court, which was confirmed
by the High Court. Hence this appeal.
c
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Notification
dated 31.1.1973 exempting buildings from the purview of the Act did not
apply to the suit premises since electric connection was given to it prior to
31.1.1973 as held in Punjab Tin Supply Co. 's case.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Notification D
dated 24.9.1973 issued in partial modification of the Notification dated
31.1.1973 was applicable to the suit premises and that Punjab Tin Supply
Co. 's case required reconsideration.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
E
HELD : 1.1. On a fair reading of the notifications particularly the one
issued on 24.9.1973 it is clear that where sewerage connection can be given
to a building the period of exemption is to be counted from the date when
such connection is granted by the competent authority; where sewerage
connection cannot be granted, as for instance, in the case of booths the F
period is to be counted from the date electric connection is first given by the
competent authority and in a case not covered under these two categories,
from the date the building is actually occupied. 251-G-H; 252-8]
....
1.2. Since the building, of which the suit premises is a part, is not G
one to which sewerage connection cannot be granted and to which sewerage
connection was indeed granted on 24.2.1973 the period of 5 years' exemp-
tion should be computed from that date. (252-A-B]

2. However, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Punjab Tin
Supply Co. 's case the exemption granted by the notification dated 31.1.1973 H
248 SllPREMECOl'RTREPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.
A applies only to those bllildings which are given sewerage ronnection or 'q ...
electric connection or which are occupied as the case may be on or after
31.1.1973 and not to those buildings which satisfy any of the said condi·
tions before 31.1.1973. Since electric connection was granted to the build·
ing on the date prior to 31.1.1973 the said exemption notification is not
B applicable to the suit premises which is a part of the building. Therefore,
the East Punjab l'rban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 will apply and the civil
court has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit. [252-C-D; G]

Punjab Tin Supply Co. v. Central Government, [1984) t SCC 206,
affirmed.
c
3. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is a piece of
beneficial legislation intended to grant protection to the tenants against
arbitrary and unauthorised eviction by the landlords. Therefore, the ex-
emption notification, which takes out cases from the purview of the Act,
D should be strictly construed. Hence, the decision in Punjab Tin Supply Co. 's
case does not require reconsideration. [253-8-0)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 203 of
2000.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 22J0.97 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in S.A.O. No. 30 of 1997.

M.K. Dua for the Appellant.

Bairam Gupta and Nidhesh Gupta and Ms. Minakshi Vij for the
F Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.

G The core question that arises for determination m this case is
whether the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') was applicable to the building in qui.:stion on the
date of filing of the suit? If the question is answered in the affirmative the
suit is not maintainable; if on the othi.:r hand the answer to the question is
H in the negative then the suit is maintainable.
MOHlNDER LAL v. SMT S.K. VERMA [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.j 249

Suit property n.:lates to the shop-cum-office No. 84, Sector 17-C, A
Chandigarh. Cydisputedly, tht: respondent herein is the land-lady and the
appellant is the tenant in respt:ct of the suit premises. The respondent filed
civil suit No. 57 of 1982 for ejectment of the appellant from the suit
property and for recovery of Rs. 4,5CO on account of the arrear and
rent/damages. The respondent inducted the appellant as a tenant of the
suit prt:mises on monthly rent of Rs. 1,5CO on 5th May, 1973. The respon-
B
dent terminated the lease and filed the suit for ejectment on 13.L 1978. It
is the case of the respondent that the building is exempted from the
provisi.ons of the Act, as applicable to Chandigarh for a period of 5 years
from the date of the sewerage connection which was given to the building
on 24-2-1973. c
The period of exemption had not expired on the date of filing of the
suit; therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Contesting the suit the appellant contended, inter alia, that electric
connection to the building was given on 3.1 1973; the period of t:xemption D
from the purview of the Act is to be computed from this date and the suit
having been filed after 5 years from that date is not maintainabk.

On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following
iswe~ which arc relevant for the present purpose :
E
A Whether the suit is not competent in vit:w of the applicability
of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as
applicable to Chandigarh? and

B. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this
suit? F

C. Whether the building i& exempt from the provisions of the
East Punjab Lrban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as applicable
to Chandigarh?

The trial court took the view that the period of 5 years ext:mption in G
the case of ground floors of SCOs is to be counted from the date of electric
connection or st:werage connection whicht:vt:r is earlier. Therefore, the
period of 5 years is to he counted from .:U .1973 and the suit having been
fil.t:d after expiry of 5 years from that dak, the provisions of the Act are
applicable to the building in question. The trial court dismisst:d the suit. H
250 SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.
A On appeal by the respondent, the first appellate court, in Civil
Appeal No. 83 of 1983 differed from the view taken by the trial court and
held that when the sewerage conneccion can be given to the building the
ground of electric connection is sub-servient to the clause of sewerage
connection; the sewerage connection was granted on 24.2.1973 and com-
puted from that date the suit filed on 13.2.1978 was well within the period
B of exemption. The first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial
court and remanded the case to it for deciding the suit on merits after.
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

The petitioner approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
C in second appeal No. SAO 13 of 1997 in which the High Court agreed with
the view taken by the first appellate court and dismissed the appeal. The
judgment is under challenge in the pn.:scnt appeal.

The learned counsd for the appdlanl raised two-fold contentions :
D firstly, that the first appellate court and the High Court committed error
in holding that the relevant date for computing the five years period of
exemption in this case is the date of sewerage connection and not the date
of electric connection; secondly, the karned counsel raised the contention ·
that the exemption from the Act did not at all extend to the building in
question since electric cunm:ction to the building was given prior to 31st
E January, 1973. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of Mis Punjab Tin Supply Co. v. Central Government and
Others, [1984) I SCC 206. -

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand
F supported the view taken by the first appellate court and the High Court.
According to him, the courts below were right in holding that in the facts
and circumstances of the case the date of sewerage connection is the
material date and computed from that date the period of exemption had
not expired by the date of filing the suit.

G Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the parties it will be convenient to quote the relevant
portions of different notifications issued by the Chief Commissioner, Chan-
digarh under Section 3 of the Act granting the exemption for 5 years and
prescribing the manner of computation of such period. The same are
H quoted below :
MUHINDERLALv. SMT.S.K. VERMA;D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.j 251

"No. 352 LD-73/602 dated January 31, 1973 • In exercise of the A
powers conferred by Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act, 1949 (Punjab Act No. III of 1949), as applicable
to the t:nion Territory of Chandigarh, the Chief Commissioner,
Chandigarh, is pleased to direct that the provisions of the said Act
shall not apply to building, constructed in the urban area of B
Chandigarh, for a period of five years with effect from the date
the sewerage connection is granted in respect of such buildings by
the competent authority under Rule 112 of the Punjab Capital
(Devdopment and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952.''

Notification dated September 24, 1973 reads: c
'No. 2294-LD-73/3474 - In partial modification of Chandigarh
Administration, Home Department/Notification No. 352 LD-
73/602 dated January 31, 1973, the Chief Commissioner, Chan-
digarh is pleased to direct that the period of five years' exemption D
shall be computed as under :

(a) Where sewerage connection can be given, from the date such
connection is granted by the competent authority;

(b) Where sewerage connection cannot be granted, as for instance, E
in the case of booths, from the date electric connection is first
giwn by the competent authority;

(c) In case not covered in categories (a) or (b) above from the
date the building is actually occupied."
F
Further notifications in the matter were issued on 24 September,
1974 and on 11 June, 1982.

On a fair reading of the notifications particularly the one issued on
24th September, 1973 it is dear that where sewerage connection can be
given to a building the period of exemption is to be counted from the date G
when such connection is granted by the competent authority; where
sewerage connection cannot be granted, as for instance, m the case of
booths the pi;:riod i.\ to be counted from thi;: date electric connection is first
given by the cornpdent authority and in a case not covered under these
two categories, from the date the building is actually occupied. H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (200011 S.C.R.
A The view taken by the first appellate court which was confirmed by
the High Court was that the building of which the suit property is a part
is not one to which sewerage connection cannot be granted. Indeed the
-
sewerage connection was granted to the building on 24.2.1973. Therefore,
this case falls within clause (a) of the notification dated 24th September,
B 1973 and clause (b) does not arise for consideration. This position flows
from a plain reading of the notification. But that is not end of the matter.
A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court considering the challenge
against constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Act and the notifications
dated 31st January, 1973, 24th September, 1973 and 24th September, 1974,
in the case of Punjab Tin Supply Co. (supra) he!d that Section 3 of the Act
C and the notifications arc valid and effective and further that the exemption
granted by the notification dated 31.1.1973 applies only to tho~e buildings
which are given sewerage connection or electric connection or which are
occupied, as the case may be, on or after January 31, 1973 and not to those
buildings which satisfy any of the said conditions before January 31, 1973.
D The conclusions arrived at by this Court were summed up in the following
words:

"In the result we declare that Section 3 of the Act and the
notification dated January 31, 1973 and the other notifications
impugned in these cases arc valid and effective. We further declare
E that the exemption granted by the notification dated January 31,
1973 applies only to those buildings which are given sewerage
connection or electric connection or which are occupied, as the
case may be, on or after January 31, 1973 and not to those buildings
which satisfied any of the said conditions before January 31, 1973.'
F
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned case
the position is inescapable that the exemption notification dated 31.1.1973
does not apply to the building of which the suit premises is a part, for the
reason that eli::ctric connection wa~ granted to the building on a date prior
to 31.1.1973. It follows, therefore that the civil court has no jurisdiction to
G entertain the suit and the suit is not maintainable and the first appellate
Court and the High Court were in error in holding that the suit was
maintainable.

The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the decision in
H Punjab Tin Supply Co. (supra) needs reconsideration and the question may
MOHINDER LALv. SMT.S.K. VERMA[D.P. MOHAPATRA,J.j 253

be referred to a largcr Bcnch for coru,idtration. A
We arc not persuaded to accept the contention. The East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is a piecc of beneficial legislation
intended to grant protection to tenants against arbitrary and unauthorised
eviction by landlords. Prior to thc issue of the exemption notification the
Act was in force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh with effect from B
4.11.1972 and the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain suits for
eviction of tenants. An cxccption was made in regard to Chandigarh and
exemption from the provisions of tht: special Act was granted for a period
of 5 years. In the context it is apt and proper that the exemption notification
which takes out cases from the purview of the Act, should be strictly
construcd and that is what has bct:n done by this Court. We arc, therefore,
c
not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the m.pondcnt
that tht: matter should be rcftrrcd to a larger Bench for decision on the
correctm:ss or otherwise of the vicw taken by this Court in Punjab Tin
Supply Co. (supra).
D
In thc result, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The judgment of
the first appcUatc court and the judgrnt:nt of the High Court are set aside
and the judgment of the trial court is confirmed. There will however be no
order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed. E