Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court by which suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed.

2. In short, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a built up property situated in village Mulahera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, comprising of a basement, ground floor and first floor, total measuring 22,000 square feet (covered area) alleging that it was leased out to the defendant on 01.01.2003 for a period of 5 years. The rent was fixed @ Rs.10/- per square foot with an agreement that it would be increased by 20% after three years. The plaintiff determined the lease after a period of 5 years when the rate of rent was @ Rs.12/- per square foot. He determined the lease for the basement and the ground floor on 31.12.2007, for the first floor on 29.02.2008 and issued notice to the defendant on 28.03.2008 to vacate the property in dispute. Since the defendant did not vacate the demised premises, therefore, the suit was filed for possession and also for claiming the recovery of Rs.27,72,000/- as damages and mesne profits @ Rs.30/- per square foot w.e.f. 01.04.2008 along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from parting with possession of the property or from making any structural change.

3. In the written statement, the defendant took some preliminary objections but on merits, it admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and execution of the lease but the nonpayment of rent was not admitted.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is lawful owner of the suit property?OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property on the grounds mentioned in the plaint.OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.27,72,000/- from the defendant along with pendente-lite and future interest as prayed for?OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for?OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act conduct and acquiescence from filing the present suit?OPD.

6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD.

7. Relief.”

5. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW2, Parveen Kumar Raghav, J.E. as PW1, Satbir Singh, Kanungo as PW3, Vivek Singh Rao as PW4 and tendered site plan Ex.P1, lease agreement Ex.P2, notice Ex.P3, postal receipt Ex.P4, courier receipt Ex.P5, reply to notice Ex.P6, lease agreement Ex.PX, certified copy of statement of Mahender Kumar as Ex.PA, certified copy of lease agreement Ex.PB, certified copy of judgment Ex.PC and certified copy of decree sheet Ex.PD.

6. On the other hand, defendant examined M.K.Dhir, Director of the company as DW1 and Jagdish, Assistant Draftsman as DW2 and tendered Punjab Govt. Gaz. Notification Ex.DW1/1 and site plan Ex.DW1/2, attested copy of statement of Gajraj Ex.DA.

7. The Trial Court non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit because during the pendency of the suit, the area in which the property in dispute is situated came within the municipal limits to which the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as the “Act”) became applicable but the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court on the ground that even if the suit land, on which the building is in existence, was not within the municipal limits at the time of filing of the suit to which Act became applicable during the pendency of the suit as the property in dispute has come within the urban limits of Municipal Committee, Gurgaon, the rights of the parties to the suit had crystalized for the purpose of maintainability of the suit at the time of filing of the suit and the Civil Court would continue to have the jurisdiction to decide the same.

8