Gurdev Singh vs Labh Singh Gill

Laxmi Narain Mittal, J.—Aggrieved by order dated 7.4.2012 Annexure P/7 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application

Annexure P/5 filed by defendants/petitioners for dismissing the suit which has been instituted by respondent/plaintiff, the instant revision petition has

been filed by the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the said order. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for possession

of the suit shop situated in Sudhar Bazar and for recovery of mesne profits alleging that the defendants were tenants in the disputed shop and their

tenancy stands terminated.

The defendants in their application Annexure P/5 alleged that the suit property falls within urban area under the East Punjab Urban Rent

Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) as per notification dated 23.5.1975 Annexure P/1 (correct date 19.5.1975) and therefore, in view of

provisions of the Act, suit does not lie in the civil court.

Plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/6 opposed the application and controverted the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the alleged

notification Annexure P/1 declaring the area as urban area is non-existing, non est and never implemented. It was also alleged that there is no

Notified Area Committee or Municipal Council and rather there is Gram Panchayat and therefore, the concerned area is not urban area.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that vide notification dated 19.5.1975 Annexure P/1, Sudhar Bazar where the disputed shop is situated has

been declared as urban area for the purpose of the Act and therefore, only Rent Controller has jurisdiction to evict the petitioners as tenants and

the civil suit filed by the plaintiff in the civil court cannot proceed.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that according to information received by the plaintiff under the Right to

Information Act (RTI Act), Sudhar Bazar has not been declared as urban area. It was also argued that disputed question of fact whether the suit

property is situated in urban area or not can be decided after the parties lead their evidence and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.

Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in Gupta Hotel, Proprietor Neki Ram Gupta Vs. The State of

Haryana and Others , judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh and Others, and judgment of Rajasthan High Court in

Nanu Ram Sharma and Another Vs. Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur and Others, .

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Notification dated 19.5.1975 Annexure P/1 which has not been rebutted in any manner depicts

that the said notification has been issued in exercise of power u/s 2(j) of the Act which defines ''urban area''. The said provision is reproduced

hereunder:-

2(j) ""urban area"" means any area administered by a municipal committee, a cantonment board, a town committee or a notified area committee or

any area declared by the State Government by notification to be urban for the purpose of this Act.

It is manifest from bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that any area administered by a municipal committee, a cantonment board, a town

committee or a notified area committee is automatically urban area for the purpose of the Act. Besides it, the State Government may also declare

any other area as urban area for the purpose of the Act. Thus, not only the areas falling within municipal limits are urban areas for the purpose of

the Act but also other areas which have been declared as urban areas by notification by the State Government for the purpose of the Act are also

urban areas for this purpose. In the instant case, Sudhar Bazar may not be situated in area of a municipal committee, a cantonment board, a town

committee or a notified area committee. However, State Government vide notification Annexure P/1 has specifically declared Sudhar Bazar area

as urban area for the purpose of the Act in exercise of power u/s 2(j) of the Act. The disputed shop as per plaint Annexure P/4 itself is situated in

Sudhar Bazar. Area of Sudhar Bazar has been declared as urban area for the purpose of the Act. Consequently, provisions of the Act are

applicable to the disputed shop situated in Sudhar Bazar which is urban area for the purpose of the Act. Jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit for

possession by ejectment of the tenants (defendants) is, therefore, barred by the Act.

Information obtained by respondent under the RTI Act has no relevance because the said information has been obtained from Deputy Director,

Urban Local Bodies, Ludhiana. The said information appears to be for the purpose of the Municipal Act and not for the purpose of the Act i.e.

Rent Act. On the other hand, there is gazette notification Annexure P/1 dated 19.5.1975 issued by the State Government declaring Sudhar Bazar

as urban area for the purpose of the Act. Consequently, information obtained by the respondent-plaintiff under the RTI Act cannot over-ride the

notification Annexure P/1.

The contention that the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided without leading evidence is not available in the instant case because

according to plaintiff''s own version, the disputed shop is situated in Sudhar Bazar and vide notification Annexure P/1, Sudhar Bazar has been

declared as urban area for the purpose of the Act. Consequently, the question of recording and appreciating the evidence for this purpose does not

arise. In view thereof, judgments in the cases of M/s. Gupta Hotel, Ballabgarh, Proprietor Neki Ram Gupta (supra); Bhau Ram (supra) and Nanu

Ram Sharma & Anr. (supra) cited by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand. For the reasons

aforesaid, I find that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit for possession of the disputed shop for ejectment of the defendants who were

tenants therein. Impugned order passed by the trial court that this question would be determined after recording evidence is, therefore, illegal and

suffers from jurisdictional error. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/7 passed by the trial court is set

aside. Application Annexure P/5 filed by the defendants is allowed and plaint Annexure P/4 instituted by respondent/plaintiff stands rejected.