KISHAN ALIAS KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question to be considered in these two appeals is whether the Courts below were barred by the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 from passing decrees directing the appellants to deliver possession of the properties scheduled in the suits to the respondents.

(2.) The facts in both the cases are almost the same with some difference in dates. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1991 was inducted as a tenant in one shop on 1-11-1977. The building was constructed a few months before the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy was terminated by a notice issued on August 10, 1983 by the respondent. The suit for possession was filed on 26-9-83. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 357 of 1991 became a tenant of another shop on 1-8-1977. The construction of the shop had been completed only a short time before the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy was terminated by the respondent in that appeal by notice dated 3-11-1981. The suit for possession was filed on 24-9-83.

(3.) Both suits were tried along with other suits against tenants of other shops on similar facts by the Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat. In all the suits, the defendants/tenants raised several contentions including challenge to the title of the plaintiffs and the quantum of rent. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiffs and decrees were passed on 8-12-88. Appeals in the Court of Additional District Judge suffered dismissal on 26-10-89. Second appeals were dismissed in limine by the High Court with one word 'orders'. It is only these two appellants who have come to this Court. An attempt has been made to canvass all the findings of Courts below but as they are factual and supported by evidence on record we have no difficulty in rejecting the same.