Product S.No.1851880343 Licensed to: Sh.
Raghav Sood,Advocate Khanna Punjab
This judgement ranked 6 in the hitlist.
Rajinder Kumar Sharma v. Raj Kumar (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1993710
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before:- Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.
CR No. 3382 of 2019 (O&M). D/d. 01.04.2022.
Rajinder Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Raj Kumar and another - Respondents
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:- Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT
Filing of eviction petition - Eviction petition deemed to be amended and to be
filed under new Act, i.e. 1995 Act.
Punjab Rent Act, 1995, Section 75 - Filing of eviction petition under repealed Act
- "whether after enforcement of Punjab Rent Act, 1995 petition filed under East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 can be filed? - Held, eviction petition
would be deemed to be amended and filed under new Act, i.e. 1995 Act -
Direction to Rent Controller to proceed with matter in accordance with law.
[Para 9]
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner assails the correctness of the order passed by
the Rent Controller on 09.05.2019. In substance, the dispute is "whether after
enforcement of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 the petition filed under the East Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act') could be filed?
2. The petitioner contends that the rent petition could only be filed under the 1995 Act,
after repeal of the 1949 Act.
3. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with
their able assistance perused the paper book.
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the eviction petition filed
under the repealed Act must be considered to be non est, therefore, liable to be
dismissed. He further contends that the Rent Controller has erred in dismissing the
application.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents contends that the rent
agreement was executed during the applicability of the of 1949 Act and therefore, the
petition was maintainable.
6. The argument of the learned counsel representing the respondents is erroneous
because Section 75 of the 1995 Act, repealed the 1949 Act. The ejectment petition was
filed before the Rent Controller in the year 2018. Admittedly, at that time, the 1995 Act
came into force with effect from 30.11.2013. Whereas the Punjab (Amendment Act),
2014, came into force with effect from 29.08.2014. The Punjab Rent (General Rules),
2015 were enforced with effect from 05.06.2015.
7. However, there is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the ground on which the
ejectment have been sought are available under the 1995 Act. The rent petition is at an
initial stage. At the most, the petition can be said to be suffering from a curable defect.
The question is "whether the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction dismiss the
ejectment petition or permit a formal amendment so as to advance the cause of justice.
8. In the considered view of the Court, the second option would be in consonance with
the intention of the Statute as the statute is a beneficial legislation. The Courts have
been constituted to do substantive justice between the parties while making sincere
endeavours to follow the procedural law.
9. With that spirit in mind, the eviction petition would be deemed to have been amended
and filed under the new Act, i.e. the 1995 Act. The Rent Controller is directed to proceed
with the matter in accordance with law.
10. Disposed of accordingly.
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
