The rights of the parties are crystallized at the time of filing the suit, and subsequent events cannot be considered in certain cases.

1. This is defendant s appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code ) challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the defendant-appellant is liable to be ejected from the demised shop. It has further been found that the plaintiff-respondent, which is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act has proved the termination of tenancy by issuing a statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, the Act ) and the service of the same was effected on the defendant-appellant. It has also been found that there was a rent note executed between the parties on 19-5-1987 (Ex. P-3). The plea of the defendant-appellant has been rejected which was to the effect that no decree of ejectment against him could be passed after the expiry of a period of 10 years irrespective of the fact as to whether on the date of institution of the suit, the period of 10 years had not yet passed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 330 of 1996/2001 instituted on 30-10-1996/28-9-2001 seeking ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the shop in dispute. Recovery of Rs. 6075/- along with interest was also claimed as rent and penalty for user. The demised shop was stated to have been constructed in the year 1987 and, thus, on the date of filing the suit, the period of 10 years had not expired. In other words, the building was not subjected to the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, Rent Act ). The tenancy of the defendant-appellant was terminated by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Act. The notice was sent on 24-7-1996 which was duly served. The arrears of rent were claimed w.e.f. 1-5-1988 but the arrears were time-barred. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent claimed the arrears w.e.f. July, 1993 alleging that neither the possession was delivered back nor the arrears were paid. The stand of the defendant-appellant was that the tenancy was not terminated by serving correct notice, facilities were not furnished as promised and that at the time of construction of the shop, the defendant-appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-appellant has further claimed a damage of Rs. 2 lacs. In addition, it was submitted that during pending of the suit, a period of 10 years had passed and, therefore, the provisions of the Rent Act would be attracted and no suit was competent. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent in its favour with costs to the effect that the defendant-appellant was liable to be ejected and he was directed to hand over the demised shop to the plaintiff-respondent within a period of two months. He was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6075/- plus amount of Rs. 168.75 p.m. from the date of filing the suit till the exact date of handing over the possession. It is also appropriate to mention that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code to strike off the defence of the defendant-appellant on account of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1-9-1998 to 31-7-2001. The total rent in respect of 3 months amounted to Rs. 5568.75 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum amounting to Rs. 1378/-. In the reply dated 24-1-2001, the defendant-appellant admitted that he had deposited the rent upto October, 1998. However, he assigned the reasons of non-payment of further rent by pleading that no amenities by the plaintiff-respondent were provided. On 24-1-2002 the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code was allowed and consequently the defence of the defendant-appellant was struck off. The defendant-appellant was proceeded ex parte on 2-3-2002 and the findings were recorded in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Consequently, the