S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. .Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is impliedly barred from the field covered from specifically and squarely by the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, is the significant and the pristinely legal question which is before this Full Bench on a reference.

2. The relevant facts would pale into relative insignificance in view of the primarily legal nature of, the issue aforesaid. Nevertheless, the matrix of facts giving rise to controversy has inevitably to be noticed in the first instance. Gobind Ram respondent-landlord had on May 31, 1975 preferred a suit for possession of a shop claiming that the construction thereof had been completed in the month of August, 1969. During the pendency of the suit, the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) was amended with the result that all the non-residential buildings constructed after March 1962, would also come within the ambit of the Act . As a necessary consequence the ground on which the ejectment of the tenant was sought from the shop in dispute disappeared and the petitioner tenant preferred an application that the s