Punjab-Haryana High Court
Leela Kishan vs Devi Sarup on 13 July, 2010
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2007
Date of Decision : July 13, 2010
Leela Kishan .... Appellant
Vs.
Devi Sarup .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. J. S. Cooner, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate
for the respondent.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is second appeal by defendant Leela Kishan having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
Respondent Devi Sarup filed suit against the appellant for possession of disputed shop by ejectment of defendant and also for recovery of Rs.620/- as rent since 01.08.2000 till 31.12.2000 and also for mesne profits @ Rs.100/- per day since 16.02.2001 till delivery of possession. Admittedly, the defendant-appellant was tenant in the disputed shop under the plaintiff. The plaintiff has pleaded that defendant's tenancy was R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2007 2 terminated by serving notice dated 25.01.2001.
Defendant's case is that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Other plaint allegations were controverted.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2005, decreed the plaintiff's suit directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within three months and also to pay mesne profits @ Rs.150/- per month w.e.f. 16.02.2001 till delivery of actual possession of the suit property. Rent deposited by the defendant during pendency of the suit was ordered to be adjusted towards said mesne profits. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
It is undisputed that Radaur, where the suit property is situated, was earlier Municipal Committee, and therefore, being urban area, provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short - the Rent Act) were applicable to the disputed shop. However, vide notification dated 02.03.2000, Municipal Committee, Radaur was abolished and therefore, Radaur became a village having Gram Panchayat. Consequently, provisions of the Rent Act ceased to apply to the disputed R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2007 3 shop. The suit was filed on 14.08.2001 and was decided by the trial court on 15.03.2005. Since before the filing of the suit till decision by the trial court, provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable to the disputed shop and therefore, only Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the instant suit. Since defendant's tenancy stood terminated, defendant was rightly ordered to be ejected from the disputed shop by the trial court.
First appeal was preferred by the defendant on 13.04.2005. During pendency of the first appeal, State of Haryana, vide notification dated 28.03.2006, constituted Municipal Committee, Radaur and consequently, provisions of the Rent Act became applicable to the disputed shop. However, again during pendency of first appeal itself, Municipal Committee, Radaur was abolished vide notification dated 21.09.2006 and provisions of the Rent Act again ceased to apply to the disputed shop. First appeal was decided thereafter on 07.04.2007, when provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable to the disputed shop. Consequently, first appeal has also rightly been dismissed by the lower appellate court.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that notification dated 21.09.2006, whereby Municipal Committee, Radaur was abolished, stands challenged in C.W.P. No.17436 of 2006, which stands admitted. However, admittedly, there is no interim order staying the said notification dated 21.09.2006. Consequently, the position now existing is that there is no Municipal Committee in Radaur and therefore, provisions of the Rent Act are not applicable to the disputed shop.
R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2007 4
In addition to it, when Rent Act was not applicable to the disputed shop at the time of filing of the suit, subsequent application of the Rent Act to the disputed shop would not disentitle the plaintiff to seek ejectment of the defendant from the disputed shop from the Civil Court. In the instant case, the Rent Act was not applicable to the disputed shop even at the time of passing of the decree by the trial court. Consequently, with the passing of the said decree, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties further came to end although defendant's tenancy had already been terminated by serving notice. Consequently, subsequent application of the Rent Act to the disputed shop would be ineffective and immaterial. However, in the instant case, the Rent Act was not applicable to the disputed shop either at the time of filing of suit or at the time of decision by the trial court or at the time of filing of first appeal or at the time of decision of first appeal by the lower appellate court.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courts below so as to warrant interference in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
July 13, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE