Smt Parkash Wati vs Jagdish Chand

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is Plaintiff''s second appeal whose suit for ejectment from the shops in dispute has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

The Plaintiff is the owner of certain buildings which have two storeys. She built 17 shops on the ground floor in place of some previous construction after the date 31st December, 1962. She let out shops bearing numbers 4, 5 and 6 to Jagdish Chand Defendant under rent note dated 6th April, 1966. The monthly rent of each shop was fixed at Rs. 35/. The Plaintiff determined the tenancy in favour of the Defendant by notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which was received by the Defendant, on 13th September, 1973. It was pleaded on behalf of the Plaintiff that the shops were built by her after 31st December, 1962, and hence the same were outside the purview of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

It is on this ground that she brought the suit for the ejectment of the Defendant from the disputed shops in the Civil Court. The suit was filed on 6th November, 1973. In the written statement the Defendant denied that the disputed shops were constructed by the Plaintiff after the aforesaid date or that the disputed shops were outside the purview of the Rent Act On trial the learned Sub-Judge found that the building had not been reconstructed after 31st December, 1962 as there was no evidence on the record to show that the roof and the back wall were also reconstructed after this date. In view of this finding it was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the Plaintiff''s suit. Dissatisfied with the same the Plaintiff has filed this second appeal in this Court.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. I do not find any merit in this appeal After taking into consideration the entire evidence on the record it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the Plaintiff only made large scale alterations on the ground floor of the building where she got built the disputed shops by making necessary alterations in the rooms and the Varandha. The back wall of these rooms and the roof over these rooms were allowed to remain in tact when the Plaintiff redesigned the dimensions of the shops by building the front walls and the intervening walls of the shops. From this it was concluded that it was a case of making alterations only and it was not a case of reconstructing the building so that it might be held that the reconstruction of the shops took the case out side the purview of the Rent Act. It was further found that the proved facts of the case in fact are that the Plaintiff built a shopping centre in the first floor of the building by making necessary alterations in the dimensions of some rooms. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding as to be interferred with in second appeal. However, it may be noticed that during the pendency of the appeal by virtue of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1978 tub section (3) of Section 1 of the Act 1973 was sub-stituted and was always deemed to have been substituted. The sub-stituted Sub-section reads as under:

Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of 10 years from the date of its completion." The said amendment is of no consequence as regards the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.