Misquoting the wrong provision or non-mentioning of any provision would not be sufficient to take away the jurisdiction of the court.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for setting-aside the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Lower Appellate Court vide which the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh, allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as amended upto date) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1949'), for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises/house on the ground of non-payment of rent, change of user as well as personal necessity. The said rent petition was filed in the year 2018. The petitioner/tenant appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the petition on the ground that the petition is filed under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1949, stands repealed and Section 75 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (in short 'the Act of 1995') provides that on commencement of the Act of 1995, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act No.3 of 1949), stands repealed. It is further provided that under Sub-Section (1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, all cases and other proceedings in respect of the premises other than owned by a nonresident India, let out prior to the commencement of this Act shall be governed and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act so repealed.

3. It was, thus, submitted by the petitioner/tenant that since the rent petition is filed under the repealed Act, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

4. The respondent/landlord filed reply and contested the same on the ground that due to inadvertent omission only in the heading of the petition, it is mentioned as under Section 13 of the Act of 1949 whereas the petition is filed under Section 20 of the Act of 1995 (as amended upto date). It was also submitted that all the grounds mentioned in the body of the eviction petition are formed on the basis of Section 20 of the Act of 1995, as amended upto date and while filing the written statement, no such plea was taken by the respondent/landlord.

5. It was also submitted that the application is filed only after the assessment of provisional rent in which the arrears are more than Rs.40.00 lacs and in order to avoid the liability, the application has been filed just to delay the proceedings.

6. The trial Court vide order dated 25.08.2021, allowed the application holding that as per Section 1 and Section 75(1) of the Act of 1995, it is clear that w.e.f. 30.11.2013 coming into force the Act of 1995, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, stands repealed and as per the proviso, no proceedings between the parties were pending on the date when the Act of 1995 came into existence, the respondent/landlord has erroneously filed the petition under the Act of 1949. The operative part of the order dated 25.08.2021, reads as under:-'Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the alleged tenancy agreement between the parties is governed by the provisions of Punjab Rent Act, 1995 and not by the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In such a scenario, present rent petition is barred by Section 75(1) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 and falls under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC.

7. Accordingly, the rent petition is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC with liberty to file fresh one under the new Act. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.'

8. The respondent/landlord, thereafter, preferred an appeal under Section 52 of the Act of 1995, challenging the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2021, and one of the ground taken in the appeal was that since the provisional rent was not assessed, the respondent/landlord has filed a petition before this Court, in which on 28.07.2021, it was directed that the Rent Controller, will decide