JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 04.05.2015 and 19.02.2016 passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for possession by way of ejectment, filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff, stands decreed.

2. Briefly stating, while claiming himself to be the owner-landlord of the premises in question comprising of two sheds measuring 20' x 42' and 10' x 42'; situated in Block No. 65, Gate No. 1, Village Dariya, U.T., Chandigarh, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment against the appellant-defendant, besides claiming arrears of monthly rent w.e.f. 01.06.2012 to 31.12.2012 @ Rs. 18,500/- per month, as also praying for mesne profit w.e.f. 01.01.2013 to 31.01.2013 @ Rs. 1,300/- per day along with interest. It was pleaded in the plaint that the tenancy in favour of appellant-defendant was terminated at the hands of respondent-plaintiff vide notice dated 03.12.2012 issued in terms of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the 1882 Act') followed by the filing of suit in hand.

3. Upon appearance, the appellant-defendant filed written statement; though, the factum of tenancy under the respondent-plaintiff was admitted, however, the rate of rent as claimed by the respondent-plaintiff was disputed. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as 'trial Court'):-

'1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek ejectment of the defendant from the demised premises on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1,29,500/- being in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.6.2012 to 31.12.2012 with future interest @ 18% per annum from the filing of the suit till its realization? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 1,300/- per day being unauthorized occupant after 31.12.2012? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands? OPD

6. Relief. '

4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.2015 decreed the suit in favour of respondent-plaintiff, while holding that the tenancy qua two sheds measuring 10'x 42' and 20' x 42' which commenced in 2003 & 2007 respectively was validly terminated vide notice dated 12.12.2012 issued in terms of Section 106 of the 1882 Act, besides grant of decree for recovery of arrears for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month as mesne profit w.e.f. 01.01.2013 till 30.04.2015, as also recovery of mesne profit @ Rs. 31,500/- per month alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.05.2015 till the date of handing over the possession of the suit property in favour of respondent-plaintiff.

5. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-defendant filed first appeal, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'First Appellate Court'), while upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in toto. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that though suit for possession by way of ejectment qua the premises in question was filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff on 01.12.2013, however, during pendency of the proceedings arising therefrom, in terms of notification dated 18.01.2019 issued under the signatures of Secretary, Estates Chandigarh Administration, the area in question was notified to be controlled under the provisions of Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (for short 'the 1952 Act'). In view thereof, learned counsel submits that the rights of parties as regards their relationship of lessee and lessor were now to be governed under the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the 1949 Act') and,