Sat Pal vs Umrao Singh

A.P. Chowdhri, J.—Brief facts relating to this Regular Second Appeal are that Umrao Singh, respondent-plaintiff, filed a suit for possession against the appellant defendant with the averments that he had let out a plot of land 25 Karms x 15 Karms abutting on Ajnala-Amritsar road in the area of Ajnala, district Amritsar at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month with effect from August 1, 1967. The plaintiff served a notice to quit on September 24, 1983. The defendant having failed to vacate the plot, the aforesaid suit was filed.

The suit was contested on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), which, according to the defendant applied to the area in question.

The learned trial Court framed the following issues :--

"1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from?

Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his own act and conduct?

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

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by ejectment of defendant?

Relief."

It was held the Act was not applicable to the plot in question as it was situated outside the urban area notified under the Punjab Municipal Act All the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant were negatived and the suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar on April 29, 1985.

In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, permitted the defendant to amend the written statement. As a result of the amendment of the written statement an additional issue No. 3-A was framed, it reads as under :--

"3-A. Whether the tenancy in question was validly terminated vide notice dated September 24, 1983 admittedly served on the defendant? OPP."

The case was remanded under Order 41, Rule 25 of the CPC vide order dated October 8, 1986. Learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, after recording evidence on (he additional issue, returned, a finding in favour of the plaintiff by his order dated January 14, 1987. First appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on February 25, 1987. It is against the said judgment and decree that the present Regular Second Appeal was filed by the defendant-tenant.

When the appeal came up for hearing on February 17, 1989, it was noted that two basic questions needed a clear finding. These are: one, whether the town of Ajnala in district Amritsar is an urban area within the meaning of the Act or not and. two, whether the demised premises, which is the subject-matter of the controversy in the two Regular Second Appeals was situated outside the limits of the urban area. The Subordinate Judge concerned was directed to record evidence of the parties and to submit a report with his findings on the aforesaid two issues by order dated February 17, 1989. In compliance, with the above order, Subordinate Judge 1st, Class, Ajnala, has submitted his report dated May 12, 1989. According to the findings of the learned trial Court the plot in question is situated outside the urban area declared as notified area for purposes of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1989 It follows that the Act does not apply and jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. No objection appears to have been filed against the said report either in the trial Court where the enquiry was held or in this Court on behalf of the either party.

After going through the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and in the absence of any infirmity therein having been pointed out I find that there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.