Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sarvjit Kaur And Others vs Gurcharan Singh on 8 March, 2010
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 4716 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4716 of 2009
Date of Decision : March 08, 2010
Smt. Sarvjit Kaur and others .... Appellants
Vs.
Gurcharan Singh .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate
for the appellants.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is second appeal by legal representatives of defendant Surinder Singh (since deceased). Respondent Gurcharan Singh filed suit for possession of the disputed house by ejectment of defendant Surinder Singh therefrom and also for recovery of Rs.28,000/- as rent and also mesne profits from the date of filing of suit till delivery of possession at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. The plaintiff alleged that the residential suit property situated in Radaur was let out by plaintiff to defendant on monthly rent of Rs.800/- excluding house tax, on 01.06.2000. It was monthly tenancy. The defendant failed to pay rent since 01.10.2000 till 31.08.2003 i.e. for 35 months, amounting to Rs.28,000/- at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. Defendant's tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 29.07.2003, served on the defendant on 30.07.2003, giving him 15 days' time from the receipt of notice. The defendant was asked to vacate the demised property on or R. S. A. No. 4716 of 2009 2 before 30.08.2003 and also to pay the arrears of rent, but the defendant failed to do so.
The defendant, while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, denied the rate of rent being Rs.800/- per month. It was alleged that rate of rent was Rs.150/- per month inclusive of house tax. Rent stood paid till 30.06.2003 without receipt. It was also pleaded that provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short - the Haryana Rent Act) were applicable to the demised property.
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2006, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and the suit has been decreed for possession of the disputed room. Decree for recovery of Rs.28,000/- as arrears of rent since 01.10.2000 till 31.08.2003 at the rate of Rs.800/- per month has also been passed along with simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 15.09.2003 i.e. the date of filing of the suit till recovery. Mesne profits at the same rate of Rs.800/- per month w.e.f. 01.09.2003 till delivery of actual possession have also been granted. The amount paid during the pendency of the suit has been ordered to be adjusted. Feeling aggrieved, the legal representatives of defendant have preferred the instant appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the appellants stated that Radaur was a municipal town since the year 1922 till it was notified as Gram Sabha area vide notification dated 05.05.2000. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that Radaur was again notified as municipal town on 28.03.2006, but vide notification dated 21.09.2006, Radaur was again notified as Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellants accordingly contended that R. S. A. No. 4716 of 2009 3 on 08.08.2006, the date on which the suit was decided by the trial court, Radaur was a municipal town i.e. urban area and therefore, provisions of the Haryana Rent Act were applicable to the demised property and therefore, civil court had no jurisdiction to order ejectment of the defendant from the tenancy premises.
I have carefully considered the contention, but find no force therein.
The suit was instituted on 15.09.2003. On that date, Radaur was admittedly Gram Panchayat and therefore, provisions of the Haryana Rent Act were not applicable to the demised property. Consequently, civil court had jurisdiction to try the ejectment suit. Rights of the parties had to be determined at the time of the institution of the suit. In this context, it may be noticed that even in urban areas, provisions of the Haryana Rent Act are not applicable to a building for ten years after its completion. If ejectment suit is filed during the said period of ten years, civil court continues to have jurisdiction to pass ejectment decree in such a suit, even if provisions of the Haryana Rent Act become applicable to the demised property during the pendency of the suit, on expiry of the initial period of ten years from the date of completion of the building. On the same analogy, in the instant case, provisions of the Haryana Rent Act were not applicable when the suit was instituted and therefore, applicability of provisions of the Haryana Rent Act during the pendency of the suit on declaration of Radaur as municipal town would not divest the civil court of its jurisdiction to try the suit.
In addition to the aforesaid, when the lower appellate court passed the decree on 15.06.2009, even at that time, provisions of the Haryana Rent Act were not applicable to the demised property because Radaur was again declared Gram Panchayat vide notification dated 21.09.2006. Consequently, civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit, when the lower appellate court disposed of the first appeal and the first appeal being continuation of the suit, jurisdiction of the civil court or the lower R. S. A. No. 4716 of 2009 4 appellate court was not barred to pass ejectment order against the defendant, from the demised property.
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that notification dated 21.09.2006, whereby Radaur was declared Gram Panchayat, is under challenge in writ petition. However, admittedly, operation of the said notification has not been stayed and therefore, Radaur continues to be a Gram Panchayat and consequently, provisions of the Haryana Rent Act are not applicable to the demised property.
In view of the aforesaid, I find that provisions of Haryana Rent Act are not applicable to the suit property and therefore, the lower appellate court has rightly passed the ejectment decree against the defendant, now represented by his legal representatives. There is, therefore, no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
March 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE