Date Of Decision:10.02.2014 vs Naib Singh on 10 February, 2014

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Date Of Decision:10.02.2014 vs Naib Singh on 10 February, 2014

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain

                                                        vinod kumar
                                                        2014.02.13 10:29
                                                        I attest to the accuracy and
                                                        integrity of this document
                                                        Chandigarh


RSA No.3196 of 2011 (O&M)                                          [1]
                                 *****

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH


                                  RSA No.3196 of 2011 (O&M)
                                  Date of decision:10.02.2014



Baljit Singh                                             ...Appellant
                               Versus
Naib Singh                                            ...Respondent


CORAM:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain


Present:     Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate,
             for the appellant.

             Mr. H.S.Dhillon, Advocate,
             for the respondent.
                   *****


RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

The defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from the demised premises has been decreed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree for possession by way of ejectment because during the pendency of the suit, the area, in which the demised premises is situated, has come within the municipal limits as per notification issued by the Haryana Government. Thus, he has framed a question of law as to whether the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession by way of ejectment if during the pendency of the vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3196 of 2011 (O&M) [2] ***** suit/appeal, the area, in which the demised premises is situated, comes within the municipal limits and the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (here-in- after referred to as the "Act") becomes applicable.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:-

           (i)     Sawan Ram      v. Gobind Ram and another,
                   1980(2) Rent Control Journal 63;
           (ii)    Mani Subrat Jain v. Raja Ram Vohra, AIR 1980
                   Supreme Court 299;

(iii) Jagpat Rai v. Gurdial Singh, 1991(2) PLR 23;

(iv) Krishan Lal and another v. Krishan, 2010(2) Rent Control Reporter 87;

(v) Ram Narain and others v. Ram Lal and others, 2004(1) PLR 634;

(vi) J.N.Katyal and another v. Krishan Kapur alias Bittu and another, 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 303; and

(vii) Lakshmi Narayan Guin and others v. Niranjan Modak, 1985(1) Rent Control Reporter 27 (SC). On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Shri Kishan @ Krishan Kumar v. Manoj Kumar, 1998(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 283;

(ii) Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Panja, 1988(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 423 (SC);

(iii) Basakha Singh v. Mani Ram Bhatia, 2007(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 384;

(iv) Harjit Kaur v. Sarabjit Kaur and another, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 74; and

(v) Smt. Sarvjit Kaur and others v. Gurcharan Singh, 2010(4) PLR 154.

I have discussed the aforesaid judgment in the case of vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3196 of 2011 (O&M) [3] ***** "M/s Dhir Global Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Gajraj Singh" RSA No.3486 of 2013, decided on 10.02.2014 and held that in case the suit is filed when the property in dispute is not an urban property to which provisions of the Act are inapplicable and during the pendency of the suit, limits of the municipal area are extended, taking into its fold the area in which the demised premises is situated, it becomes an urban area and, therefore, the Civil Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide the lis between the parties even at the stage of execution as the tenant would have protection of the provisions of the Act in which specific grounds are provided for seeking eviction and the tenancy cannot be terminated merely by serving a notice upon the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

In the present appeal, when the suit was filed, the demised premises was in the rural area and was included subsequently in the urban area to which the Act is applicable, therefore, the Civil Court would cease to have jurisdiction to try and decide the suit and the proper forum for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant is of the Rent Controller where he could file appropriate application for seeking ejectment in terms of the provisions of the Act.

Consequently, the present appeal is hereby allowed and the judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside.

February 10, 2014                          (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
vinod*                                             JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court