Piare Lal (died) through L.Rs. vs Nihal Singh

Nawab Singh, J.—This defendants'' second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 11th, 1987 passed by District Judge, Jind affirming the judgment and decree dated August 23rd, 1986 of Sub Judge First Class, Safidon whereby suit for possession of the shop situated near railway crossing gate, Safidon described in the head note of the plaint together with a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,787.50 paise and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 325/- per month till vacation of the premises by the defendant, was decreed. Nihal Singh-plaintiff filed suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent pleading that he had let out his shop to the defendant and the tenancy came to an end on August 31st, 1982. The defendant was however, continuing as tenant by holding over after that date. A notice to vacate the shop was issued to the defendant on January 10th, 1983 u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that the premises had been constructed in 1977 and it was, therefore, exempted from the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "the Rent Act") for a period often years from the date of construction.

The defendant contested the suit and filed writ-ten-statement pleading therein that Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the plaintiff should have his remedy under the Act.

On contest, following issues were framed:-

Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount as arrears and mesne profits, if so to what amount? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property? OPP

Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OD

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Relief.

Issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Judge and affirmed by the First Appellate Court and it was held that tenancy of the defendant ought to have been terminated. The plaintiff was also held entitled to decree for recovery of Rs. 1787.50 paise and further held entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 325/- per month. Issue No. 3 was also answered in favour of plaintiff holding that plaintiff was entitled to possession of the shop in dispute. Issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the shop had been constructed in the year 1977 thus, it was exempted from the provisions of Rent Act for a period of 10 years. The remaining issues were answered against the defendant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, as stated above.

Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the shop because the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

In Shri Kishan @ Krishan Kumar Vs. Manoj Kumar Etc. Etc., a full Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that suit for eviction filed within ten years which expired during pendency of limitation, Civil Court can continue the proceedings. This being so, Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the shop. In view of the settled legal position, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. The appellants are directed to vacate the premises within three months from today.