RSA No.156 of 2010(O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.156 of 2010(O&M)

Date of decision: 19.1.2010

Badrinath

......Appellant(s)

Versus

Gaushala Trust Society

......Respondent(s)

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

* * *

Present:

Mr. Sagar Deswal, Advocate for the appellant.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)

CM No.467-C of 2010

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 24 days

in filing this appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM No.468-C of 2010

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 124

days in refiling this appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM No.469-C of 2010

CM is allowed. The applicant is permitted to make good the

deficiency in Court fee.

RSA No.156 of 2010

This is defendant's regular second appeal challenging the

judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the plaintiff's suit for

possession by way of ejectment and recovery of rent has been decreed

with costs.

As per averments made in the suit, the plaintiff-respondent

filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the property in dispute i.e.

shop bearing No.56 forming part of a big building situated at Gaushala

RSA No.156 of 2010(O&M)

2

Spatu Road, Ambala City along with other property. It was further alleged

that the appellant was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.230/- per month

and the tenancy was monthly and commencing from 1st of each calendar

month. A rent note was executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of

the plaintiff-respondent. He stopped paying rent from April, 1999 and a

sum of Rs.8,280/- was due from him on account of arrears of rent which he

failed to pay. Thereafter, a notice dated 9.8.2002 under Section 106 of the

Transfer of Property Act (for short the “Act”) terminating the tenancy of the

appellant was served upon him and he was asked to hand over the vacant

possession of the shop in dispute. Hence, this suit.

Upon notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed

written statement raising various preliminary objections. Ownership of the

plaintiff-respondent was denied. It was further submitted by him that the

plaintiff-respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana

Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, which is pending. On merits, it

was stated that defendant-appellant was not a tenant under the plaintiff-

respondent and the rent note, if any, was a forged document. The

relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied.

Receipt of notice regarding termination of tenancy was admitted. It was

further submitted that in view of the pendency of petition under Section 13

of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, the suit was not

maintainable. Thus, denying the other allegations, dismissal of the suit was

prayed for.

The plaintiff-respondent filed replication denying the averments

made in the written statement and reiterating those of the plaint. It was

further submitted that the defendant was estopped by his own act and

conduct to raise any plea of title between the parties. It was further

submitted that in the reply filed to the petition under Section 13 of the

RSA No.156 of 2010(O&M)

3

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, the defendant-appellant

had taken a plea of jurisdiction of the Authorities under the Rent Act, the

building being newly constructed and had admitted the relationship of

landlord and tenant between the parties.

On appreciation of the evidence and hearing learned counsel

for the parties, the trial Court held that there was relationship of landlord

and tenant between the parties. It was further held that tenancy was

terminated validly. It was further held that the plaintiff-respondent was

entitled to recover a sum of Rs.8,280/- along with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed with costs

and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum and

mesne profit