RSA No. 5091 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 5091 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 23.12.2011 Daljeet Singh ....Appellant Vs. Rajinder Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Suit for possession filed by Rajinder Kumar-plaintiff- respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') was decreed by the trial Court on 21.02.2011 and the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred as 'the defendant) was directed to deliver the vacant possession of the demised premises within a period of one month from the date of judgment i.e. 21.02.2011. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed on 25.10.2011. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the shop measuring 20' X 6' and 10½”, situated within the abadi of village Bhagta Bhai Ka, on 12.09.2005, when there was no Municipal Committee existing at that time. The defendant was a tenant under him at the rate of ` 900/- per month. As such, the defendant was in arrears of rent RSA No. 5091 of 2011 (O&M) to the tune of ` 4500/- also. The defendant, while contesting the cause, took the plea that the rent was settled at the rate of ` 500/- per month and he had sent the rent for the month of July, 2005, through money order, but the plaintiff did not accept the same. The other plea raised by the defendant is that since Notified Area Committee has been constituted in Bhagta Bhai Ka, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, whereas the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is false, frivolous and liable to dismiss with special costs? OPD 4. Relief.” Both the Courts below decided against the defendant and he was, accordingly, directed to vacate the premises. Both the Courts had also observed that at the time when the suit was filed, the Gram Panchayat was in existence, therefore, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. Primarily, similar objection has been raised by the defendant before this Court by stating that only the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to decide the question with regard to tenancy. While pondering over the contention, as raised by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, it may be observed that at the time of filing of the suit, there was a Gram Panchayat RSA No. 5091 of 2011 (O&M) in village Bhagta Bhai Ka, within the area of which, the demised premises was located. According to plaintiff-Rajinder Kumar (PW- 1), the Notified Area Committee was constituted vide notification issued on 18.11.2010 (Ex.P6). Since there was no notification in operation at the time of institution of the suit and Notified Area Committee was constituted vide notification dated 18.11.2010 (Ex.P6) which was later on stayed by this Court, as such, the property falls under the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, Bhagta Bhai Ka. Thus, this contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is turned down and the findings returned by both the Courts below stand affirmed. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) December 23, 2011 JUDGE ajp