IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 3372-C & 3371-C of 2009 and R.S.A. No. 1150 of 2009 Date of decision: 19-3-2009 Tanveer Singh … Appellant versus Darshan Singh … Respondent THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M. No.3372-C & 3371-C of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 380 days in filing and 18 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1150 of 2009: Appellant before this Court was the defendant who lost concurrently before the Courts below in a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff in his suit claimed that he is owner/landlord of the property situated near Bus Stand of village Gill on the Ludhiana- Malerkotla Road, District Ludhiana. Out of the said property, he gave on rent one shop bearing No.4 to the defendant on 1.3.1996 at a monthly rent of Rs.1400/- per month. Since the defendant started defaulting in making regular payment of rent, the plaintiff served upon the defendant a notice dated 16.4.1998 thereby calling upon him to terminate the tenancy. Plaintiff stated that the defendant had also materially impaired the value and utility of the disputed shop by constructing a “Thara” i.e. plinth measuring 9”x6” in front of the said shop. Plaintiff stated that instead of vacating the property or paying the rent, the defendant filed a false and frivolous suit for permanent injunction for restraining the plaintiff from dispossessing him from the shop. In the said suit, the defendant took the plea that he is a tenant in the said shop though the tenancy stood terminated as per notice dated 16.4.1998. As an abundant caution, the plaintiff again served notice R.S.A. No. 1150 of 2009 -2- dated 1.11.1999 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act calling upon the defendant to make payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1.8.1996 till date and to vacate the shop but to no avail. Hence, the suit. Upon notice of the suit, defendant in his written statement took up various preliminary objection, including an objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the tenanted premises are within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, where the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, are applicable. On merits, it was stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff was a counter blast to the suit filed by the defendant. Defendant pleaded that the rent of the disputed shop was Rs.225/- per month and not Rs.1400/- per month as claimed by the plaintiff. It was denied that the defendant had materially impaired the value and utility of the shop in question. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, vide its judgment and decree dated 24.4.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It however, observed that since the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proving that the rent of the shop was Rs.1400/- as alleged by him, the rent will be taken as Rs.225/- per month as pleaded by the defendant. Accordingly, the trial Court directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff within three months and further directed him to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8100/- as arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1999. Aggrieved therefrom, defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2007. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record have concurrently observed that the defendant in his written statement has admitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question by the plaintiff. Moreover, as per oral and documentary evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff, previous owner Karam Singh had executed agreement of sale after receipt of entire amount of sale consideration from the plaintiff and had also executed in his favour Power of Attorney of even date. As regards the plea that the tenanted premises are within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, where the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, are applicable, the Courts below have taken into consideration Exhibit P-3/1, i.e. notification dated 13.11.1985 R.S.A. No. 1150 of 2009 -3- issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, showing that the boundary of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, ends at Octroi Post situated near Guru Nanak Engineering Collge and village Gill where the shop in dispute is situated, is outside the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. PW-3 Pritpal Singh, Naib Tehsildar while producing on record the said notification, also proved site plan in this regard and deposed that village Gill falls outside the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Thus, the Courts below have concurrently found that since the shop in dispute is situated outside the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana as such, the provisions of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, are not attracted. The Courts below have also held that the mere fact that the plaintiff has subsequently filed the suit after filing of suit for permanent injunction by the defendant, it cannot be said to be a counter blast or having been filed with mala fide intention so as to deny the plaintiff the relief of possession or damages for use and occupation of the shop in dispute. Rather, the plaintiff by producing clinching evidence, oral as well as documentary, has been able to make out a case for ejectment of the defendant by possession of the shop on termination of the tenancy and further entitled to get arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1999. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) March 19, 2009 JUDGE JS