Smt. Sarla Devi vs Deepak Kumar

Ajay Tewari, J.—This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

The appellant had let out her vacant land vide rent note Ex.P1 and admittedly the said rent note did not specify the exact purpose for which it was let out. After the lease period, the appellant filed the instant suit for possession by way of eviction. The plea of the respondent was that the said land had always been used as coal depot and thus, it came within the definition of ''rented land'' under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and consequently, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that even though the rent note was silent yet in fact the property was being used as coal depot i.e. principally for ''business or trade''. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence which renders them so perverse as to be liable for interference u/s 100 of CPC. The following questions have been proposed:

a) Whether a vacant plot of land surrounded by boundary wall (gher) which is let out to a tenant vide a duly written rent note without specifying the exact purpose is excluded from the definition of rented land as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act, 1973 and accordingly the provision of Act, 1973 being not applicable to such land, a civil suit for possession by way of ejectment is maintainable?

b) Whether oral evidence can be looked into for the purpose of finding the specific purpose of letting when admittedly in the written rent note between the parties, specific purpose for letting suit land is not mentioned meaning thereby that the suit land either be used for residential or for commercial purpose?

c) Whether the applicability of oral evidence is excluded to read between the contents of written agreement in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?

d) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Id. Courts below are illegal, suffers from material irregularities?

e) Whether while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the Id. Courts below erred in law and fact and misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record as also the mandatory and settled proposition of law?

In these circumstances, questions No.(a), (d) & (e) have to be decided against the appellant. With regard to questions No.(b) & (c), the findings of the Courts below permitting other evidence on a subject on which rent note was silent cannot be held to be illegal. Thus, these questions have also to be answered against the appellant. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.