RSA No.2904 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2904 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.7.2009 Kishan Lal ......Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration that he is tenant under the defendant and that notice of eviction of the plaintiff is illegal; null and void and without any authority, was dismissed. The plaintiff was handed over possession of booth No. 170, Sector 28, Faridabad on monthly rent for a period of two years i.e. 4.4.1985 to 3.4.1987, but the plaintiff has not vacated the premises after the expiry of the agreed period and, therefore, the plaintiff was served with a notice dated 7.7.1997. It was the said notice, which was challenged by the plaintiff before the Civil Court unsuccessfully. Both the Courts have found that the notice of eviction is not RSA No.2904 of 2008 (2) illegal as the appellant is in unauthorised possession of the shop in question. It was found that the appellant was not entitled to any notice since the lease was not being terminated during its validity period and that notice was necessary only during the period of lease. Since the lease period has expired, therefore, the defendant is entitled to possession of the same. It has been also found that the appellant has not paid any lease money rent after 1988. It has been found by the learned first Appellate Court that the amount of Rs.11,000/- sent by the appellant after issuance of the notice, is inconsequential. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he is a protected tenant under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. In the absence of the statutory protection, the appellant is not entitled to the declaration sought for. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 6.7.2009 ds