JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein (for short "the plaintiff") for rendition of a decree, for possession, hence, stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by defendants Paramjit Singh, and, by Narinder Singh, the latter Court, dismissed, the appeal besides obviously upheld the trial Court''s judgment and decree, hence, the instant appeal. 2. The plaintiff on 22.5.2002 had instituted a suit for possession against the appellants ( hereinafter referred to as "the defendants) in the Court below on the allegations that the defendants had been owners of Shop No. 286 in Ward No. 4 in the area of Kotwali Bazar Dharamshala within the limits of Municipal Council, Dharamshala. The premises in dispute was 25"x13" and was situated in Khata/khatauni No. 168min/686min, khasra No. 827 as per jamabandi for the year 1995-96 of up Mahala and mauza, Dharamshala. The plaintiff had been tenant in possession of the premises in dispute under the defendants. Of late, the condition of the premises in dispute had not been good. The premises in dispute required extensive repairs. On 14.6.2000 the defendant No. 6 Shri Paramjit Singh and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement Ex.PW-2/A . As per the terms and conditions of this agreement, the plaintiff was to pay a sum of Rs.80, 000/- in two installments to defendant No.6. The defendant No. 6 was to carry out the repair of the premises in dispute within 45 days. After completion of repair work, defendant No. 6 was to hand back the possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.50, 000/- to defendant No. 6 on 14.6.2000. The plaintiff had vacated the premises in dispute and had handed over possession thereof to defendant No. 6 on 14.6.2000. The plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs. 30, 000/- to defendant No. 6. Defendant No.6 had carried out repair wok of the disputed premises. The plaintiff had requested defendant No. 6 to deliver the possession of the premises in dispute to him, but without any result. The plaintiff had issued notice (Ex.PW-2/B to defendant No.6 on 14.9.2001. The defendant No. 6 had received notice of the plaintiff, but had not owed his words. Defendant No. 6 was stated to have started his own business in the disputed premises. The plaintiff had issued notice (Ex.PW-2/B to defendant No.6 on 14.9.2001. The defendant No. 6 had received notice of the plaintiff, but had not owed his words. Defendant No. 6 was stated to have started his own business in the disputed premises. The plaintiff had not surrendered his tenancy of the disputed premises in favour of defendant No. 6. The possession of the defendants in the disputed premises was unauthorized and illegal. The plaintiff was entitled to possession of the disputed premises. The plaintiff had been earning his livelihood from the shop/disputed premises. The plaintiff had claimed a sum of Rs.20, 000/- from defendants, and hence the suit for possession and for recovery of Rs.20, 000/- against the defendants. 3. In written-statement filed by defendants, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, jurisdiction, locus standi, misjoinder and cause of action. On merits, they admitted their ownership of the disputed premises. The plaintiff had been tenant-in-possession of the premises in dispute under the defendants. The condition of the premises in dispute had not been good. On 14.6.2000 the plaintiff had handed over the possession of the premises in dispute to defendant No.6. The plaintiff and defendant No. 6 had entered into an agreement Ex.PW2/A. The plaintiff had not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement Ex.PW-2/A. The plaintiff was to pay the amount of Rs.30, 000/- to defendant No. 6 within 15 days of the execution of the agreement Ex.PW-2/A. The plaintiff did not pay the amount of Rs.30, 000/- within the stipulated period to defendant No. 6. The plaintiff had paid the amount of Rs.30, 000/- to defendant No. 6 through cheque on 23.10.2000. The defendants No. 1 to 6 had admitted the receipt of Rs.50, 000/- from the plaintiff on 14.6.2000. It had been stated that the right, title ad interest of the plaintiff stood forfeited on account of non payment of the amount of Rs.30, 000/- within the stipulated period. The plaintiff had lost his tenancy of the premises. The defendant No.6 had reconstructed the shop in dispute in third week of October, 2000. The plaintiff had been requested to execute the rent note of the premises in dispute. It had been stated that Shri Ashok Pathania , Advocate, at the instance of the plaintiff, had scribed the rent note. The plaintiff had lost his tenancy of the premises. The defendant No.6 had reconstructed the shop in dispute in third week of October, 2000. The plaintiff had been requested to execute the rent note of the premises in dispute. It had been stated that Shri Ashok Pathania , Advocate, at the instance of the plaintiff, had scribed the rent note. As per the rent note, so prepared, the plaintiff was to pay rental charge of Rs.1500/- per month to the defendants. Out of the amount of Rs. 1500/- Rs.1, 000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff in cash and the amount of Rs.500/- per month was to be adjusted against the costs of re-construction of the premises in dispute. The plaintiff did not take the possession of the premises in dispute as per the rent of Rs.1500/-. The defendants had kept the premises in dispute vacant in November, 2000. In December, 2000, the plaintiff had visited the defendant No. 6 and had paid Rs.1000/- as rent for December, 2000. The plaintiff was requested to pay the rent of Rs. 1000/- for the month of November, 2000. He was also requested to execute the rent note. The plaintiff did not do so. The plaintiff had not taken possession of the premises in dispute even though requested a number of times. The defendants could not keep the premises in dispute vacant for indefinite period. As such the defendants had started furniture business in the premises in dispute. The defendant No. 6 had sought financial assistance from the Bank for starting furniture business. The plaintiff was not entitled to the possession of the premises in dispute. He was also not entitled to the amount of Rs.20, 000/- from the defendants. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is a tenant of the shop in question, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the shop in question? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.20, 000/- as compensation, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is a tenant of the shop in question, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the shop in question? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.20, 000/- as compensation, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff did not come to take possession of the shop on 01.11.2000 on payment of Rs.1000/- cash, as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff did not pay the amount of Rs. 30, 000/- to defendant No. 7 within 15 days from the date of agreement, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 11. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD 12. Whether the suit has not been property valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 13. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendants Paramjit Singh, and, Narinder Singh, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, upheld the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have, instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment(s) and decree(s) , by both the learned Courts below. When the appeal came up, for admission, on 25.3.2009, this Court, admitted the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. When the dispute arose regarding the tenancy of a shop in the Municipal Committee area, whether the provisions of Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 will not be applicable. 2. When the suit is based on an agreement, whether the provisions of specific Relief Act for specific performance of the agreement will not be applicable? Substantial questions of law8. When the dispute arose regarding the tenancy of a shop in the Municipal Committee area, whether the provisions of Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 will not be applicable. 2. When the suit is based on an agreement, whether the provisions of specific Relief Act for specific performance of the agreement will not be applicable? Substantial questions of law8. The plaintiff, on anvil of Ex.PW-2/A, drawn, interse him and co-defendant No. 6, hence instituted a suit, for possession, of, the premises hitherto, under, his occupation, (i) delivery of possession whereof, was made, by him vis-a-vis Codefendant No. 6, for ensuring its repair being carried out by the latter from funds, as enunciated therein being purveyed by him, to, co-defendant No.6, (ii) whereas co-defendant No. 6, after, effecting repairs vis-a-vis the relevant suit premises, his rather refusing to deliver possession thereof, to, the plaintiff. 8. The apposite proof vis-a-vis, the, valid and due execution of Ex. PW-2/A, is, comprised, in, the respectively recorded testifications, by its scribe, and, attesting witnesses thereto. Conclusivitiy vis-a-vis, th, e afore-referred testifications, rendered by scribe, and, attesting witnesses, of, Ex. PW-2/A, does galvanize hence immense fortification, from, the defendant No.6 in his cross-examination, hence, acquiescing vis-a-vis its execution inter-se him, and, the plaintiff. 9. Be that as it may, with, defendant No. 6, in his testification, occurring in his cross-examination, making unequivocal articulations, qua the plaintiff liquidating qua him, a sum of Rs. 80, 000/- and also his acquiescing, during, the course of his cross-examination, whereto he stood subjected, to, by the learned counsel, for the plaintiff qua his utilizing, a, sum of Rs.80, 000/-, for the purpose recited therein (i) thereupon, hence, with the plaintiff rather complying with all the conditions, borne, in validly executed Ex.PW-2/A, (ii) whereupon, it was also incumbent upon the defendants to likewise beget their compatible compliance(s) therewith. However, compliance therewith remained un-meted by the defendants. 10. However, compliance therewith remained un-meted by the defendants. 10. The solitary contention raised, by the learned counsel for the defendants, for, resiling from the contractual obligations hence enjoined upon them, in Ex.PW-2/A, is, founded upon the factum, of, there occurring belated payments, of, some amounts'' recited therein, (i) however, no succor thereupon can be derived by the defendants, given the defendants, accepting, the purported belated tenderings, whereas, when it was rather open to him or them to refuse to accept, the, purported belated tenderings, (ii) whereupon alone the aforesaid espousal would gain vigor, (iii) contrarily hence with the purported belated tenderings being accepted by him or them, rather, generates an inference of the aforesaid espousal, being rendered frail besides enfeeble. 11. The effect of the aforesaid inference, is, of the rendition of a decree of possession vis-a-vis, the, suit premises hence not suffering from any illegality or impropriety, rather it being founded upon, a, correct appreciation, of, the evidence germane thereto. 12. Be that as it may, the, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants, has placed reliance, upon, the provisions hence occurring in Section 34 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, and, has with extreme firmness, reared a contention, before this Court, that, with the suit premises being located, in, an area whereat, the, provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, are, applicable, (i) thereupon in consonance, with, the hereinafter extracted provisions of Section 34 supra, the, Civil Court concerned, was statutorily disabled, to, pronounce any decree for possession vis-a-vis the suit premises, rather, the appropriate remedy available for espousal, was, the one encompassed in the apposite provisions of the Act. "(I) The Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, (23 of 1971) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (3) , all suits, appeals and other proceedings, including execution proceedings, under the said Act, pending before any Court of appellate or revisional authority, on the appointed day shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as if the provisions contained in this Act were, at the relevant time, in force. (3) Nothing contained herein shall authorise any Court or authority or tribunal to re-open any suit or proceedings in which the orders passed have already become final and executed." 13. (3) Nothing contained herein shall authorise any Court or authority or tribunal to re-open any suit or proceedings in which the orders passed have already become final and executed." 13. The afore espoused submission per-se, erupts, from a gross misunderstanding, of, the provisions, borne, in Section 34 of the Act. The reasons'' being (a) the apposite non-obstante clause borne therein, though, with extreme clarity, and, forthrightness, though, rather excludes the apt exercise of jurisdiction, by, Civil Court concerned or by Revisional authorities concerned, vis-a-vis any lis encompassing, a, subject matter falling within the domain of the aforesaid Act, especially at or upon coming into force vis-a-vis the apt provisions of the Act, (i) hence, all suits, appeals and proceedings including execution proceedings'', instituted before the Civil Court concerned, (ii) respectively hence encompassing subject matter(s) , evidently conspicuously falling within, the, apt domain thereof are obviously impermissible, for, theirs being canvassed hereat, (iii) preeminently rather carrying, a connotation, of, the bar, of, exercise of jurisdiction, by, Civil Courts vis-a-vis suits, appeals and other proceedings, including execution proceedings, upon coming into force, of the Act, being, only in respect of those suits, appeals, and execution proceedings, as, stand initiated, at the instance of landlord, wherein, he seeks eviction, of, the tenant from the relevant premises (b) obviously hence the mandate, of, the non obstante clause, cannot, be construed to be carrying, any clout, of suits of possession instituted, by the tenant vis-a-vis his landlord also being construed to be hence barred (c) conspicuously when no mandate occurs, in the Act vis-a-vis, the, remedy hence available therein to the plaintiff, for restoration vis-a-vis him, of, possession, of, the suit premises, rather with the statutory mandate enjoined therein, empowering only the landlord, to, seek eviction of the tenant, from the, relevant premises, (d) concomitantly, hence with no statutory remedy, being contemplated in the apt Act vis-a-vis the tenant, for his on anvil thereof hence seeking restoration, of, possession, of, the premises, by his casting a petition against his landlord (e) thereupon hence the relevant non-obstante clause, does not, obviously disentitle, any, availments by the plaintiff, of, the relevant provisions borne, in, the Specific Relief Act. 14. In view of the above, the appreciation, of, evidence, by the learned Courts below, does not suffer, from any infirmity as well as perversity. 14. In view of the above, the appreciation, of, evidence, by the learned Courts below, does not suffer, from any infirmity as well as perversity. Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below, is, maintained, and, affirmed. Substantial questions of law answered accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.