-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 1632 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 27, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 1632 of 2010 (O&M). Surjit Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Ram Chander Dhameja ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The appellant-defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne in respect of the demised premises was decreed. -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1632 of 2010 (O&M). Plaintiff-respondent is owner of the demised premises. He had purchased the plot from Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The construction of house on the said plot was completed by the plaintiff-respondent on 31.10.2002. The house was given on rent to the appellant-defendant at the rate of Rs.6500/- per month besides electricity and water charges. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant-appellant did not pay rent and other charges regarding the demised premises and that he (defendant) violated the terms and conditions of the rent note. The defendant failed to pay arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.2008 and that he(defendant) was liable to pay an aggregated amount of Rs.47,320/- along with future interest. A notice dated 20.5.2008 was issued to the defendant-appellant thereby terminating his tenancy. The said notice was received by the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the plaintiff-respondent, but he failed to do so. Since the defendant-appellant was in an unauthorized possession after the termination of his tenancy, mesne profits were claimed by the plaintiff-respondent. Main case of the plaintiff-respondent is that since the shop in question was constructed and completed in the month of October, 2002, the same is exempted from the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short `the Act'). The defendant-appellant in the written statement admitted that he had taken the house in question on rent from -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 1632 of 2010 (O&M). the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of Rs.6500/- per month besides payment of electricity and water charges to be made by him (defendant). However, he denied the other averments of the plaintiff. He also denied the factum of notice having been received by him. He further averred that nothing was due from him. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording the evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondent decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent. The defendant-appellant did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence. The appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The plaintiff-respondent, to show that the shop in question was constructed much before ten years of the issuance of notice and that the provisions of the Act were not applicable, relied upon the statement of P.W.2 Anil Kumar Malik, Sub Divisional Clerk in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, who brought the relevant record. He deposed from the record that memorandum dated 31.10.2002 (Exhibit P.6) had been issued by HUDA regarding permission of sewerage connection in favour of plaintiff-respondent. P.W.2 Anil Kumar Malik also proved the Occupation Certificate dated 30.10.2002 (Exhibit P.W.2/A) in -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 1632 of 2010 (O&M). respect of the house in question. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant neither himself appeared in the witness nor examined any documentary or oral evidence in support of his case. The documents Exhibit P.6 i.e permission of sewerage connection in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on 31.10.2002 and Exhibit P.W.2/A, Occupation Certificate dated 30.10.2002 in respect of the house in question show, in certain terms, that construction of the said house was completed in October, 2002, whereas the notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant- appellant was issued on 20.5.2008 i.e before ten years of the construction of the house in question. No doubt the defendant- appellant denied having received any such notice, but to serve a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not a pre-requisite to file a suit for possession in respect of the tenanted premises and, in fact, filing of a suit by itself was a notice to quit. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 27, 2011. JUDGE ak