IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1943 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 08, 2008 Pawan Kumar ....Appellant Versus Anita Rani and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. The respondents filed suit for possession of two shops from the appellant. In their plaint they averred that they were owners of the shops in question which they gave out on rent to the respondent on 6.9.1994 at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month plus house tax. On 6.8.1995, those shops were further let out to the appellant for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs. 1300/-, i.e. Rs. 650/- per shop plus house-tax. At the time of filing of the suit in the year 2002, the rate of rent was Rs. 1350/- per month apart from the house-tax. However, the appellant did not make the regular payment of the rent since August, 2002. The tenancy was, accordingly, terminated on Regular Second Appeal No. 1943 of 2008 -2- 22.10.2002. The appellant was asked to vacate the shops in dispute within 15 days, but he did not do so. As the shops were constructed in the year 1993 after getting the site plan sanctioned on 27.6.1992 and the electricity connection having been sanctioned on 3.2.1994, therefore, the suit for possession was filed by the respondents because the shops were exempted from the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for a period of ten years from the date of their construction. The appellant was liable for ejectment under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant opposed the suit wherein he admitted the rent to be Rs. 1350/- per month apart from the house-tax. He claimed that he was regularly paying rent. However, he stated that the shops were actually constructed and built in the year 1991. He was inducted as a tenant on 6.9.1994. Although he had been making payment regularly yet the respondents had not issued the receipts for the same. He also paid the rent for the period from August, 2002 till 31.12.2002 at the rate of Rs. 1350/- per month vide treasury challan for an amount of Rs. 6750/-, besides house-tax and the interest. Therefore, he was not liable to be evicted nor the respondents could claim any damage or mesne profits. He was not in unauthorized occupation of the shop, but regularly depositing the rent. The tenancy had not been terminated. He, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit. Regular Second Appeal No. 1943 of 2008 -3- From the documentary evidence it stands established that the shops in question were constructed in the year 1993. The site plan of the shops was sanctioned on 27.6.1992. After the construction was over, the electricity connection was sanctioned on 3.9.1994. The cause of action arose to the respondents in October/November, 2002, when the tenancy of the appellant was terminated by the respondents and he was asked to vacate the shops in question within 15 days. By that time, a period of ten years had not been completed from the date of construction of the shops and, therefore, the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 were not applicable. Appellant could, therefore, be evicted under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. On account of non-payment of the rent by the appellant from 1.8.2002, the respondents terminated his tenancy vide notice dated 22.10.2002. It is not the case of the appellant that he had paid the rent for the months of August and September, 2002. This suit in question was filed by the respondents on 16.11.2002. It is only, thereafter that he deposited a sum of Rs. 6750/- by means of treasury challan for the period from 1.8.2002 to 31.12.2002 at the rate of Rs. 1350/- per month, besides house-tax and interest. This act of his establishes that he had not paid the rent for the months of August, September and October of the year 2002 by the stipulated date. On that account, the respondents terminated his tenancy and required Regular Second Appeal No. 1943 of 2008 -4- him to vacate the suit property within 15 days. On his failure to do so, the respondents had no other option but to file suit for possession. The finding of facts, which were arrived at by the learned trial Court and upheld in appeal by learned first appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. The findings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. These findings cannot be disturbed in a second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, do not arise for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 08, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO