Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. The suit premises are described as booth No. 13 Sector 8, Panchkula. These premises were let out by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant sometime in August, 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2650/-, excluding electricity charges. Since then the defendant-appellant has been running therein a shop of provision goods and general stores. He fell into arrears of rent and electricity charges with effect from 1st April, 1990. The plaintiff-respondent served on him a notice demanding payment of arrears and terminating his tenancy. On failure to comply with the notice a suit for eviction was filed in the Court of Civil Judge on 12.9.1990. The defendant-appellant contested the suit mainly on the ground of notice of ejectment being defective. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 11th June, 1998, answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and directed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears to be decreed first and second appeals preferred by the defendant-appellant have been dismissed. This is an appeal filed by special leave.
2. It has been common case at the Bar that the suit premises are situated in the State of Haryana where the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable and the rights and obligations of the parties are to be worked out and governed under common law of the land. At the time of hearing it was conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that no fault can be found with the decree of the Trial Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there has been a subsequent event having a material bearing on the judgment under appeal and the right of the respondent to decree. Such subsequent event is now the core of controversy, the relevant facts relating to which are stated in the succeeding paragraphs.
3. It appears that the suit premises have been constructed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA, for short), governed by the provisions of The Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (the Act, for short). The premises have been allotted by HUDA to the plaintiff-respondent and the latter is required to pay certain installments to HUDA and a failure in payment of installments renders the allotment liable to cancellation with recovery of arrears, imposition of penalty and resumption of possession under Section 17 of the Act. The High Court rendered its judgment in Second Appeal on 15.12.1998. The only contention dealt with by the High Court, in view of the singular submission made before it, was to allow the appellant three months time for vacating the premises subject to an undertaking for vacating the premises on expiry of three months. SLP was filed on 8.3.1999. On 30.3.1999 this Court directed a notice on SLP to be issued to the respondent and at the same time passed an interim order staying the operation of the decree appealed against. On 15.3.1999, the date on which the time appointed by the High Court for vacating the premises was coming to an end, the tenant-appellant moved an application before the High Court seeking one month's extension of time for compliance with the direction of the High Court on two grounds, firstly, that t........