JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

Petition herein is for setting aside order dated 05.12.2022 passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dabwali, whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, was dismissed.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the revision.

2.1. Respondent No.1/plaintiff/landlord has filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment against present petitioner and proforma respondents from suit land on which a poultry farm is situated and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and for consequential relief restraining defendants No.1 & 2 from operating the poultry farm or subletting the same. It has been further averred that present petitioner and proforma respondents are in arrears of rent/lease money and have also sublet the suit property to defendant No.3, which is in violation of conditions of lease deed.

2.2. Present petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-2) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the building of poultry farm was constructed in the year 1994-95 and is admittedly more than 10-year old and that the suit property is situated within the municipal limits of Dabwali and is urban area and as such remedy lies under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1973') and not under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. It has been further submitted that suit is filed within the lease period and is a premature suit. To say the least, the lease is not terminated by any notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and that suit is filed against a dead person.

2.3. Reply (Annexure P-3) to the application has been filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff denying all averments.

2.4. Vide impugned order dated 05.12.2022, learned Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and gone through the record.

4. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC reads thus:-

"11. Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: -

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

5. Impugned order dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by Ld. Trial Court, is premised, inter alia, on the following reasoning:

"4. I have carefully perused the case file and heard the counsel for both the parties. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the present suit is not maintainable. He has prayed that present application be allowed and plaint be rejected. Per Contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent argued that the