IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.149, 201, 209 & 242 of 1999 Date of decision : April 19, 2010 RSA No.149/1999 Surjan Singh …Appellant. Versus Sharda Rani …Respondent. RSA No.201/1999 Basant Ram Bhardwaj …Appellant. Versus Ved Prakash …Respondent. RSA No.209/1999 Shakti Chand …Appellant. Versus M/s Joginder Lal Sood …Respondent. RSA No.242/1999 Ved Parkash …Appellant. Versus M/s Joginder Lal Sood …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate, in all the appeals. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, in RSA Nos.149 & 201 of 1999. Mr. Yoginder Paul, Advocate, in RSA Nos.209 and 242 of 1999. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) These four Regular Second Appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, because all of them Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… were admitted on common substantial questions of law, which read as follows: (1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction on account of the provisions contained in H.P. Urban Rent Control Act and whether the suit for possession was maintainable when the area where the property involved in the suit is situated, has been declared as Urban area by notification? (2) Whether the provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act over-ride the provisions of Transfer of Property Act being a special statute and further whether the eviction of tenants is regulated by the special statute or not? (3) Whether there was no proof of acknowledgement of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act having been served upon the appellants- defendants and if there was no proper service of the appellants-defendants the failure of non service will be a proper ground for interference by this Court in the second appeal? 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of all the appeals may be stated. Respondents in all the appeals, who shall hereafter be referred to as plaintiffs, filed suits for possession of certain properties and also for recovery of arrears of rent, after serving notice, under Section 106 of …3… the Transfer of Property Act, thereby terminating the tenancies. It was stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants-appellants had been inducted as tenants on certain premises situate in Kandaghat town and that the tenancies had been terminated by service of notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and despite service of such notice defendants-appellants had not vacated the premises. In some suits arrears of rent were also claimed. 3. All the four suits were filed in the year 1996. At that time, Kandaghat was not a notified urban area and as such H.P. Urban Rent Control Act was not applicable. 4. Suits were contested by the defendants- appellants. It was stated that the notices served were defective and the service was also not proper and, hence, the suits were not maintainable. In one case plea was also raised that the landlord-respondent had gifted the property to some other persons and, hence, he had no locus standi to file the suit. 5. Trial Court decreed all the suits and eviction of the defendants-appellants was ordered. Appeals were filed by the defendants-appellants in the Court of District Judge. Learned District Judge dismissed the appeals. Defendants- appellants then filed the present appeals. They stated in the grounds of appeal that vide Notification date 11th November, 1998, H.P. Urban Rent Control Act had …4… been extended to the area of Kandghat town and, hence, the decrees passed by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned District Judge, were without jurisdiction. Also, it was stated that H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, being a special statute, over-rode the Transfer of Property Act. Appeals were admitted, as aforesaid. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Substantial question of law No.1, as formulated in these appeals, stands answered by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 7th August, 2009, the facts of which were similar to the facts of the present case. 8. Notification of 11th November, 1998, by which H.P. Urban Rent Control Act was extended to the area of Kandaghat town, was lateron withdrawn, vide notification dated 30th May, 2003. Thereafter, another notification was issued on 5th May, 2008, again extending the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act to the area of Kandaghat town. In the judgment dated 7th August, 2009, in Sunit Kumar versus Laxmi Chand (RSA No.506 of 2004), Division Bench of this Court has taken into account all the facts, regarding issuance of a notification in the year 1998, extending the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act to the area of Kandaghat town, then the notification of 30th May, 2003, withdrawing that notification and also the notification of 5th May, 2008, again making the Act applicable to Kandaghat town, and held that …5… even though the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide a suit for possession, the decree is not executable so far as it pertains to the eviction of the tenant, in view of the bar contained in Section 14(1) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in the following terms: Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try and decide the case, but the part of the decree, insofar as it pertains to the eviction of the tenant, is inexecutable. 10. In view of the answer to substantial question of law No.1, substantial question of law No.2 is rendered only of academic interest, which this Court need not answer. 11. As regards substantial question of law No.3, that also becomes irrelevant, as the decree is not executable, in view of the aforesaid judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. 12. Submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that question of jurisdiction, based on the provision of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, having not been raised before the trial Court or the first appellate Court, the same cannot be raised in this Court, in second appeal, is without merit, because provision of Section 14(1) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act very categorically provides that …6… the decrees, which are passed even before the coming into force of the Act, are also inexecutable. All the appeals are disposed of, in accordance with the aforesaid observations and answers to the substantial questions of law. April 19, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J