The Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to entertain an ejectment application filed during the ten-year exemption period from the operation of the Rent Act.

A.L.Bahri, J.

1. Ejectment of Jiwan Kumar was ordered by the Rent Controller, Karnal on April 25, 1987 from the residential house situated in Housing Board Colony, Karnal. An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority which failed on September 1, 1987. Hence, this revision petition by the tenant.

2. The ejectment of the petitioner was claimed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for the period January 1, 1980 onwards and that Smt. Pushpa Kumari, the landlord, required the premises in dispute for her own us and occupation. The monthly rent of the premises was stated to be Rs. 150/-. The petitioner contested the petition inter alia alleging that h had paid the entire rent due and that the premises were not required by the landlord for her own use and occupation. Further plea was taken that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the house was constructed less than ten years prior to the filing of the petition and was thus exempt from the operation of the Rent Act. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties

1. Whether the respondent is liable to eviction on the ground mentioned in the application ? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPP.

3. Whether this Rent Controller has got no jurisdiction to try the present application ? OPR.

4. Relief.

3. Under issue No. 1, the Rent Controller held that the tenant was liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were also decided against the tenant. It was held that the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to try the application and the landlord had the locus standi to file the petition. In appeal, the order of the Rent Controller was affirmed. The tenant was allowed one months time to vacate the premises.

4. In appeal, it is not disputed that the premises in dispute were built on October 13, 1975 and that for a period of ten years they were exempt from the operation of the Rent Act in view of sub-section (1) section 3 of the said Act. The ejectment application was filed on February 23, 1984 and was finally decided on April 25, 1987. At the time when the ejectment application was filed, admittedly ten years had not expired. However, when the Rent Controller finally decided the same, ten years had expired. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the ejectment application was filed on February 23, 1984, the premises were exempt from the operation of the Rent Act and thus the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The mere fact that ten years expired during pendency of the ejecment application would no below jurisdiction on the Rent Controller. There is force in this contention. Before the Appellate Authority as well as before the Rent Controller, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 817., on the proposition that after expiry of the period of exemption, the tenant would be entitled to the protection of the Rent Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumars case (supra) does not hold the filed in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Marwah and others v. Smt. Samundri Devi, 1987(2) Rent Control Reporter 412. It was observed that in Vineet Kumars case (supra), which was decided by two Honble Judges of the Supreme Court, the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Parkash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta etc., 1982(2) RCR 383 (SC), of three Honble Judges was not considered. Furthermore, in Nand Kishore Marwahs case (supra), it was observed that the previous decision of the Supreme Court in Firms Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand, 1972 RCR 380 (SC), which related to East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was also not considered in Vineet Kumars case (supra). The Supreme Court held that the rights of the parties would be determined on the basis of the rights availab