IMPORTANT POINT
Tenancy--Termination of --Tenant did not disputed rent note--In written statement filed in rent petition relationship of landlord and tenant admitted--Tenant estopped from challenging title of landlord.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

1. Cm No.467-C of 2010 for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 24 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.468-C of 2010 for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 124 days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.469-C of 2010 cm is allowed. The applicant is permitted to make good the deficiency in Court fee. RSA No.156 of 2010

2. This is defendants regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the plaintiffs suit for possession by way of ejectment and recovery of rent has been decreed with costs.

3. As per averments made in the suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the property in dispute i. e. shop bearing No.56 forming part of a big building situated at Gaushala RSA No.156 of 2010 (Oandm) 2 Spatu Road, Ambala City along with other property. It was further alleged that the appellant was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.230/- per month and the tenancy was monthly and commencing from 1st of each calendar month. A rent note was executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. He stopped paying rent from April, 1999 and a sum of Rs.8,280/- was due from him on account of arrears of rent which he failed to pay. Thereafter, a notice dated 9.8.2002 under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short the "act") terminating the tenancy of the appellant was served upon him and he was asked to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute. Hence, this suit. Upon notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. Ownership of the plaintiff-respondent was denied. It was further submitted by him that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a petition under Sec.13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, which is pending. On merits, it was stated that defendant-appellant was not a tenant under the plaintiff- respondent and the rent note, if any, was a forged document. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. Receipt of notice regarding termination of tenancy was admitted. It was further submitted that in view of the pendency of petition under Sec.13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and eviction) Act, the suit was not maintainable. Thus, denying the other allegations, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. The plaintiff-respondent filed replication denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those of the plaint. It was further submitted that the defendant was estopped by his own act and conduct to raise any plea of title between the parties. It was further submitted that in the reply filed to the petition under Sec.13 of the haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, the defendant-appellant had taken a plea of jurisdiction of the Authorities under the Rent Act, the building being newly constructed and had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

5. On appreciation of the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further held that tenancy was terminated validly. It was further held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.8,280/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed with costs and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.230/- per month till its vacation were also granted.

6. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal. It may be relevant to mention at this stage that when the case was posted for orders after arguments were heard by the Lower Appellate Court, the appellant had filed an application for additional evidence to place o