Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- The present appeal has been preferred by the appellantdefendant against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kaithal, has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the suit property i.e. the ground floor of a single Khani shop comprised in Khewat No. 399 Khasra no.357 situated near State Bank of India, Branch, Karnal road, Kaithal. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is owner of the suit property, which was rented out to the defendant for 11 months w.e.f. 21.02.2005 to 20.01.2006 on payment of Rs. 2000/- per month as rent, which was exclusive of house tax. A rent note was also executed. It was agreed that defendant shall pay monthly rent in advance. The construction of the suit property was completed after getting the requisite site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, Kaithal on 25.06.1999. Therefore, the provisions of The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘Act’) are not applicable to the suit property. It is alleged that the vacant piece of land was purchased by the plaintiff from Kamla Devi upon which the construction was raised. It is further pleaded that the appellant-defendant has failed to make the payment of rent and the house tax w.e.f. 25.10.2005. Therefore, his tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 02.03.2006. The appellantdefendant has not handed over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent. Hence, the suit.

4. Appellant-defendant contested the suit on the plea that, he was tenant on both the floors of the shop. He denied that tenancy for a fixed period of 11 months only. He also denied that the construction was raised after 25.06.1999 and that the plaintiff has purchased the vacant plot. It was further pleaded that the rent was always offered to the plaintiff, but he did not receive and the appellant-defendant was compelled to file an application under Section 6-A of the Act to deposit the rent of the demised premises from 30.01.2005 to 25.06.2005, which was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2006. The said rent was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff under a compromise. The appellant-defendant also denied the service of the notice of termination of tenancy and pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

5. Plaintiff filed the replication controverting the pleas raised in the written statement.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.05.2008:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from the suit property?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent/use and occupation charges etc. plus house tax with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum from the defendant?OPP

3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?OPD

6. Relief.

7. On appreciating the material on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.07.2012 and the appellant-defendant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within one month. He was also directed to clear the arrears of using the suit property w.e.f 20.06.2011 till the delivery of the actual possession of the suit property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month.

8.