JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner assails the correctness of the order passed by the Rent Controller on 09.05.2019. In substance, the dispute is 'whether after enforcement of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 the petition filed under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act') could be filed?

2. The petitioner contends that the rent petition could only be filed under the 1995 Act, after repeal of the 1949 Act.

3. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the eviction petition filed under the repealed Act must be considered to be non est, therefore, liable to be dismissed. He further contends that the Rent Controller has erred in dismissing the application.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents contends that the rent agreement was executed during the applicability of the of 1949 Act and therefore, the petition was maintainable.

6. The argument of the learned counsel representing the respondents is erroneous because Section 75 of the 1995 Act, repealed th