JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. This core question that arises for determination in this case is whether the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was applicable to the building in question on the date of filing of the suit? If the question is answered in the affirmative the suit is not maintainable; if on the other hand the answer to the question is in the negative then the suit is maintainable.

3. Suit property relates to the shop-cum-office No. 84, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Undisputedly, the respondent herein is the land-lady and the appellant is the tenant in respect 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. 4,500 on account of the arrear and rent/damages. The respondent inducted the appellant as a tenant of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 1,500 on 5th May, 1973. The respondent terminated the lease and filed the suit for ejectment on 13.1.1978. It is the case of the respondent that the building is exempted from the provisions 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.

4. 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.

5. Contesting the suit the appellant contended, inter alia, that electric connection to the building was given on 3.1.1973; the period of exemption 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 maintainable.

6. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues which are relevant for the present purpose :

A. Whether the suit is not competent in view 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?

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

7. The trial Court took the view that the period of 5 years exemption in the case of ground floors of SCOs is to be counted from the date of electric connection or sewerage connection whichever is earlier. Therefore the period of 5 years is to be counted from 3.1.1973 and the suit having been filed after expiry of 5 years from that date of the provisions of the Act are applicable to the building in question. The trial Court dismissed the suit.

8. On appeal by the respondent, the first appellate Court, in Civil appeal No. 63 of 1983 differed from the view taken by the trial Court and held that when the sewerage connection 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 computed from that date the suit filed on 13.2.1978 was well within the period 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.

9. The petitioner approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 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 present appeal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two-fold contentions : 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 learned counsel raised the contention that the exemption from the Act did not at all extend to the building in