Judgment

Srinivasan, J.-The only question to be considered in these two ap­peals is whether the Courts below were barred by the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 from passing decrees directing the appellants to deliver possession of the proper­ties scheduled in the suits to the respondents.

2. The facts in both the cases are almost the same with some differ­ence in dates. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1991 was inducted as a tenant in one shop on 1.11.1977. The building was con­structed a few months before the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy was terminated by a notice issued on August 10, 1983 by the respondent. The suit for possession was filed on 26.9.83. The appel­lant in Civil Appeal No. 357 of 1991 became a tenant of another shop on 1.8.1977. The construction of the shop had been completed only a short time before the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy was terminated by the respondent in that appeal by notice dated 3.11.1981. The suit for possession was filed on 24.9.83.

3. Both suits were tried along with other suits against tenants of other shops on similar facts by the Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat. In all the suits,