NANAK CHAND Vs. SOBHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been broughtagainst judgment and decree dated 5/10/1976, of an Additional DistrictJudge by which he had dismissed the appeal brought by the appellant againstthe judgment and decree dated 15/03/1974, of Sub-Judge, 1st Class,Delhi, by which the suit of the respondent brought against the appellant inrespect of recovery of possession of two plots measuring 136 'x 176 'and155 ' x 43 'as per plans Ex. P-3 and P-4 was decreed. There was another plotmeasuring 150' x 155' depicted in plan Ex. P-6 which was also let out to theappellant separately and a separate suit was brought for getting eviction ofthe appellant from that plot and that suit was also decreed by the samejudgment. No dispute remains in respect of the said plot. This appealpertains only in respect of the decree passed in respect of the two plots.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that these two vacant plots hadbeen let out to the appellant at the yearly rental of Rs. 300.00 and Rs. 100.00respectively on 21/03/1954 and the tenancy in respect of these two plotsstood terminated by giving a notice of termination dated 16/08/1966. Inthe simple suit seeking ejectment from the two plots after termination of thetenancy of the appellant which was prior to the enforcement of the Transferof Property Act in Delhi, the appellant came up with the plea that the saidplots had been let out to him for agricultural purposes inasmuch as he hadbeen given permission to cultivate the land for growing flowers and for keeping the flower pots and thus, in view of the provisions of the Punjab TenancyAct, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction.

(3.) The respondent in the plaint has not specified any letting purposeof the said plots and in replication the respondent took the plea that in factthese plots had not been let out for the aforesaid purpose mentioned in thewritten statement still the respondent did not in the replication make it clearas to if the plots were not let out for growing flowers, for what purpose thesaid plots had been let out, The appellant had taken various other pleas inresisting the suit but having failed in both the Courts below, in this appealthe learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgmentand decree only on the ground that the plots having been let out for agricultural purposes, the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act of 1887, as applicableto Delhi, were applicable and the plots were covered by the definition of landgiven in Section 4(1) of the said Act and thus, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction of the appellant.