RSA No.353 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 08, 2009 Joginder Singh ...........Appellant Versus Harish Kumar ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Master Harish Kumar filed a suit for possession . The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2006. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 6.8.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2.The gist of the case is as under:- RSA No.353 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The plaintiff being owner of the disputed property, fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint, has sought the ejectment of the defendant-tenant therefrom inter-alia on the allegations that the defendant is in arrears of rent. While alleging that due to abolition of the Municipal Committee in Buria town, the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Rent Act) are not applicable in the present case. Further more, the tenancy of the defendant was terminated due to service of legal notice upon him. Thus, the plaintiff has sought a decree for possession of the disputed property by way of ejectment of the defendant-tenant and further sought the decree for recovery of the damages caused to the disputed property by the tenant-defendant because of its use and occupation to the tune of Rs.14400/- plus future interest accrued thereupon. 3.On notice, defendant has filed his written statement wherein the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit as well as rate of rent has been admitted. However, it is denied that the defendant is in arrear of rent. Further more, the termination of tenancy by way of service of any notice has been vehemently denied. While challenging the locus standi of the plaintiff it is pleaded that his suit is not maintainable because of lack of jurisdiction of the civil court to try and entertain the present suit and estoppel is in operation against the defendant. Dismissal of the suit was,thus, prayed for. 4. The plaintiff filed his rejoinder to the written statement filed by RSA No.353 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the defendant wherein while controverting the averments mentioned in the written statement, the stand as taken in the plaint was reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the shop in dispute by way of ejectment by the defendant?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.14,440/- with future interest @ 12% per annum till realization and future damages @ Rs.50/- per day for illegal and unauthorized use and occupation of the shop w.e.f. 5.4.1998?OPP 3.Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit 7.Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from the shop in dispute. The question raised for consideration of this Court is as to whether the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was applicable to the facts of the present case. RSA No.353 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Admittedly, plaintiff had purchased the vacant plot in the year 1989. DW2 Krishan Lal in his cross-examination deposed that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1990,whereas, DW1 Pawan Kumar, in his cross-examination, deposed that the shop in dispute was constructed between the year 1989-1990. The period of ten years had not yet completed from the date of completion of the construction of the shop- in-dispute at the time of filing of the suit. The shop in dispute was let out to the defendant in the month of April,1995. The suit was filed in May,1998. Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short `the Act') reads as under:- "1.(1)xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion." Thus, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the present case as the period of ten years had not yet expired after the shop in dispute was constructed till the filing of the suit. The Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 08, 2009 arya RSA No.353 of 2009 (O&M) 5