A tenant can contract out of the provisions of a rent control act if there is no prohibition against such contracting out in the act.

JUDGMENT:- Bhagat Ram has presented this Execution Second Appeal against the order dated 3rd April, 1972 of the District Judge, Mahasu, dismissing his objection under Section 47, Civil P. Code, as a result of which he is likely to be evicted from a house, which is part of a building known as "Om Bhawan", below Lakkar Bazar, Simla. The decree-holder is Smt. Lilawati Galib who claims to be the landlady of the house. The facts in brief are, that Bhagat Ram was made tenant in the house and a lease was executed on 29th December, 1966. The period fixed under the lease was for one year which was to expire on 6-12-1967. On 12-5-1967, the landlady gave a notice determining the tenancy under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, and the tenant having failed to vacate, instituted a regular suit for his eviction on 29-12-1967. According to the landlady, the construction of the building was completed on 27th December, 1966 and, therefore, under a Notification dated 18-8-1966, issued by the Punjab Government with reference to Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter read Rent Restriction Act of 1949), the said building was exempt from the provisions of the said Act for a period of 5 years from the date of its completion. This period of 5 years expired on 26th December, 1971. Therefore, she brought a regular suit of ejectment after determining the tenancy and this suit was decreed by the trial Judge on 25th September, 1970. There was a controversy as to the actual date of completion of the construction and it was contested that the building could not be considered exempted under the aforesaid Notification. After the decree of ejectment was passed by the trial Judge, the judgment-debtor Bhagat Ram filed his first appeal before the District Judge, but there too he failed and his appeal was dismissed on 11-11-1970.

Thereafter, he came in second appeal before the High Court on 4-6-1971. The parties entered into a compromise before the High Court and the said compromise has been quoted in extenso in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was admitted by the tenant that the construction of the building was completed on 27th December, 1966. However, he agreed to vacate the premises on or before 5th December, 1971 "unconditionally". Failing that, he made himself liable to pay Rs.10 per day till such time he vacated the premises, which payment was interpreted by the learned Single Judge, who decided that appeal, as damages for use and occupation of the house. It was also specifically ordered by the learned Single Judge that the appeal was deemed dismissed and six months period was allowed to the tenant to vacate the premises "without any condition". The period of six months expired on 5th December, 1971. But before this period expired, on 5th November, 1971, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rent Control Act of 1971') was enforced. On 6th December, 1971, the decree-holder sought to execute the decree of the learned Single Judge by seeking ejectment of the tenant. At that stage the present objection was filed under Section 47, Civil P. Code, wherein it was pleaded that Section 14(1) of the Rent Control Act of 1971 very much barred the execution of the decree, as conditions laid down in that section were not satisfied. It was further objected that the Rent Restriction Act of 1949 also barred the execution of the decree. While the objection was argued before the executing Court, a variety of other grounds were also taken. It was stated that the Notification did not hold good for the Rent Control Act of 1971 and the decree-bolder became deprived of its advantage on 5th November, 1971. It was stated that Section 28(2) of the Rent Control Act of 1971 rather brought to bear upon Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act of 1949 and that further barred the ejectment of the tenant. It was also pleaded that a new tenancy was created on 4th June, 1971 as a result to that comprom