Case: Rajender Bansal  Vs. Bhuru (D) Thr. Lrs.

the premises in-question were in rural area in respect of which suit was filed by the appellants on February 11, 2002. These premises consist of a shop (suit property) which is situate at Barkali Hodal Road, Punhana, Tehsil Punhana, District Gurgaon, Haryana. In the State of Haryana, Rent Act, known as Haryana Rent Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, Rent Act, 1973) is promulgated. Its sweep, however, is over the urban areas of Haryana, as defined in the Act. As pointed out above, at the relevant time suit property was in rural area and, therefore, not covered by the said Rent Act, 1973. This suit was filed, after terminating the tenancy, by the landlord, namely, father of the appellants (predecessor of the appellants) under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The ground taken was that shop was let out to one Rehmat who inducted his son (respondent/defendant herein) as a sub-tenant without the consent of the landlords. Rehmat passed away in the year 1997 and had not even paid rent for 10 years. Therefore, possession of the respondent as sub-tenant was unauthorised and illegal. Notice of vacating the premises and handing over the possession was given on October 22, 2001 and as the respondent failed to vacate the premises, suit was filed on February 11, 2002. In the suit, brother of the respondent, Yasin, was also impleaded as a defendant, who did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. Insofar as, Respondent No. 1 is concerned, though he had appeared but did not pay any rent for more than 14 years and, therefore, his defence was struck off by the civil court vide order dated May 26, 2008.Five months thereafter, i.e., on October 29, 2008, notification was issued whereby the area where the suit premises situate was declared as urbanised area and, thus, was brought within the fold of Rent Act, 1973. The Trial Court, however, after striking off defence of Respondent No. 1 continued with the suit, recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and ultimately decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated December 12, 2008. Against this decree, respondent no. 1 filed Civil Appeal No. 11/9 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Nuh taking the plea that the Civil Judge ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter from October 29, 2008 when Municipal Committee, Punhana came into existence vide notification dated October 29, 2008 and the area in-question was included in municipal limits because of which Rent Act, 1973 became applicable to the suit premises. This contention found favour with the learned Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal vide judgment dated March 16, 2009. Aggrieved by that judgment, the appellants herein preferred second appeal under Section 100 CPC, being RSA No. 3963 of 2009 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, but unsuccessfully inasmuch as the High Court has dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated February 10, 2014. It is this judgment which is impugned in the present proceedings giving rise to the question of law that has been noticed in the earlier portion of this judgment.

Reasoning:
we need to read judgments in Mani Subrat Jain and Laxmi Narayan Guin cases, the outcome whereof went in other direction. However, when we understand the ratio of the aforesaid two cases appropriately, we find no contradiction between these two cases and other line of cases like Atma Ram Mittal etc. discussed above. Insofar as judgments in Mani Subrat Jain and Laxmi Narayan Guin are concerned, these were rendered keeping in view the definition of "tenant" appearing in the rent legislations therein, namely, East Punjab Rent Restriction Act and West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. What was found that definition of tenant in those enactments included even an ex-tenant. This coupled with the fact that there was specific provision laying down that a tenant will not be evicted even in execution of a decree passed either before or after the commencement of the enactment, except in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rent Act, impelled the Court to take the view that the moment Rent Act became applicable to the area in question, the tenant or even ex-tenant stood protected and could be evicted only under the said Rent Acts. Therefore, the principles which we have culled out above in para 16 would be subject to one exception. In case definition of tenant and provisions pertaining to eviction of tenants contained in Rent Acts cover even those cases where the tenancy has been terminated (or depending upon the provisions of the Rent Act, even when Civil Court has passed the decree) the protection provided under such provision would come to the rescue of the tenant even in respect of pending cases. It is because of the reason that such a Rent Act specifically provides for protection of this nature and bars the jurisdiction of civil court even in respect of pending cases. On the other hand, where there is no such specific protection given under the provisions of the said Rent Act, the principle as laid down in Mansoor Khan (2002) 5 SCC 462 will be21. When we apply the principles laid down above to the instant case, we find that this case would fall in the category of Atma Ram Mittal and Mansoor Khan etc. as under the scheme of the Rent Act, no protection to the ex-tenants is provided and no provision is made excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of pending cases, expressly or impliedly. On the other hand, in the facts of the present case, it needs to be highlighted again that the respondents had not only sublet the premises but had not paid rent for a period of 14 years. His defence was struck off by the civil court and ultimately suit was even decreed. It is only during the pendency of the appeal that the notification was issued covering the area where suit premises are situate under the Rent Act. It will be travesty of justice if the appellants/landlords are deprived of the fruits of the said decree.We are, thus, unable to accept the view taken by the High Court.