IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 19.02.2026 Pronounced on:17.04.2026 Ram Phal ...Appellant Versus Dr. Shyam Sunder ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for respondent.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellant-

defendant being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 30.04.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Bhiwani, vide which first appeal preferred by respondent-plaintiff was allowed and suit of respondent-

plaintiff was decreed.

2. Respondent-plaintiff had filed suit for possession and sought eviction of appellant-defendant from the shop in dispute, which was dismissed by learned Court of First Instance vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.1995. It was held that suit for possession was not maintainable as suit property was constructed 10 years prior to eviction sought by respondent-

plaintiff-landlord.

3. Respondent-plaintiff-landlord, in suit for possession, had asserted that appellant-defendant had taken shop in dispute on rent on 06.06.1984 and rent was enhanced to Rs.165/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.1988 by executing a rent note dated 02.06.1986. It was asserted by respondent- plaintiff that shop was constructed within 10 years from date of filing of suit, therefore provision of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as (1973 Act), were not applicable. It was further asserted that vide notice dated 09.05.1990, tenancy of appellant- defendant was terminated by respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff had also claimed rent amounting to Rs.495/- per month from 01.03.1990 to 31.05.1990 along with Rs.400/- per month as compensation for occupation of shop in dispute thereafter.

4. Appellant-defendant-tenant vide his written statement had admitted relationship of landlord and tenant and had also admitted that shop was on rent @ Rs.165/- per month. Appellant-defendant, however, asserted that 1973 Act is fully applicable to the shop as it was constructed 10 years prior to filing of petition. Appellant-defendant further claimed that respondent-plaintiff had preferred four eviction petitions under 1973 Act before Rent Controller and same were withdrawn after receiving the rent.

Appellant-defendant had accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit.

5. Following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties:-

i) Whether the shop in dispute was constructed as alleged in the plaint? OPP ii) Whether the provisions of Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, are not applicable to the shop in dispute? OPA iii) Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated by 15 days' notice upon the defendant by the plaintiff as alleged? OPA iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits @

400/- per month from 1.6.1990 for the use and occupation of the shop in dispute by the defendant after the termination of his tenancy? OPA v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.495/-

by way of rent from defendant? OPA vi) Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPR vii) Whether the petitioner had got no locus standi to file the petition? OPR viii) whether the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form? OPR ix) Relief.

6. The foremost issue which is required to be adjudicated is whether shop was constructed within 10 years of filing of suit so as to exclude operation of 1973 Act. Learned Court of First Instance, in view of the fact that prior to filing of suit for possession, respondent-plaintiff had already filed four eviction petitions under 1973 Act and had withdrawn the same after receipt of rent rendered by tenant, held that the respondent- plaintiff had admitted that shop was constructed 10 years before filing of suit and cannot claim possession by filing present suit. Accordingly, the suit by respondent-plaintiff for possession was dismissed. Whereas learned First