S. RATTAN SINGH Vs. BAL KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of ejectment in respect of suit property.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed suit against the defendant (appellant herein) for his ejectment in respect of shop situated in Abadi Deh of Village Fatehpur Tehsil Kaithal after terminating the tenancy by serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Upon contest by the defendant, suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court. Defendant filed appeal but the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.

(3.) ON the other hand, case of the plaintiff was that the shop does not fall within the urban area. Plaintiff, in order to prove that the shop does not fall within the urban area, examined PW-1 Jai Bhagwan, Clerk of Municipal Committee, Pundri who on the basis of the record, submitted that the shop in question does not fall within the limits of Municipal Committee, Pundri. PW-2 Jeet Ram, Kanungo, Pundri submitted that the shop falls in Khasra No. 649 and the same falls within the jurisdiction of Village Fatehpur. Defendant, apart from giving his own statement that the shop in question falls within the limits of Municipal Committee, did not lead any evidence to prove that the shop falls within the municipal limits of Pundri. Trial Court as also the first Appellate Court, on the basis of statements of PW-1, PW-2 and the statement of plaintiff, held that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the shop in question because the same does not fall within the municipal limits of Pundri.