GURJEET SINGH Vs. MAJOR BHIM SAIN MEHTA (RETD.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Gurjeet Singh having substantially failed in both the courts below is in second appeal.

(2.) Respondent Major Bhim Sain Mehta (Retd.) filed suit against Defendant-Appellant alleging that he has purchased the disputed flat in Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula from its erstwhile owner Brig. M.S. Rana vide registered sale deed dated 2.5.2005. The Defendant was occupying the said house as tenant since the year 1997. Agreed rent initially was 2800/-per month which was subsequently increased to 3900/- per month. The Defendant had not paid rent to the previous landlord Mr. Rana with effect from 1.9.2004 and has also not paid rent to the Plaintiff with effect from 2.5.2005. The Plaintiff has been authorised by Mr. Rana to collect the rent from the Defendant since 1.9.2004 onwards. The disputed flat was allotted to Mr. Rana by the Army Welfare Housing Organization vide allotment letter dated 8.2.1996. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) issued occupation certificate to the Socieity on 2.4.1996. Since the suit was being filed within ten years thereof, provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the Act) were not applicable. Defendant's tenancy was terminated by serving notice dated 25.7.2005 by registered AD post as well as under postal certificate. Notice sent under postal certificate is presumed to have been delivered whereas notice sent by registered post was received with endorsement of postal authorities that addressee did not accept the same despite repeated information given to him and therefore, the same is also deemed to have been served. However, in spite of termination of Defendant's tenancy, Defendant did not vacate the flat nor paid the arrears of rent. Accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed possession of the flat by ejectment of Defendant therefrom and also claimed recovery of 48,000/- as rent/mesne profits with effect from 1.9.2004 till 31.8.2005 and also claimed further mesne profits at the rate of 7000/- per month.

(3.) The Defendant in the original written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant but in the amended written statement admitted the same. The Defendant, however, denied the rate of rent pleaded by the Plaintiff. The Defendant alleged that agreed rate of rent was 1500/- per month which was increased to 2000/- per month. The Defendant had been regularly paying rent to the previous owner Mr. Rana at the rate of 2000/- per month. The Plaintiff cannot claim arrears of rent prior to sale deed dated 2.5.2005. The Defendant denied receipt of notice of termination of his tenancy. Various other pleas were also raised.