DEVENDER KUMAR YADAV Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, I shall be disposing of two appeals bearing RSA No. 54 of 2009 titled as "Devender Kumar Yadav v. Ravinder Kumar Sanghi"and RSA No. 482 of 2009 titled as "Jai Singh Yadav v. Ravinder Kumar Sanghi"because the question of law and facts are identical in both the appeals which are filed by the defendant against judgment and decree of the learned Courts below by which suits filed by the plaintiff/landlord, who is common in both the cases, for possession of the shops in dispute, has been decreed along with arrears of rent of '2740/- w.e.f. 01.11.1995 to 29.02.1996 and interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum till recovery. The plaintiff was also held entitled to mesne profit for unauthorized occupation of the disputed shop @ '685/- per month w.e.f. 01.03.1996 till vacation of shops by the defendants.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in both the appeals, the few necessary facts are required to be noticed which are extracted from RSA No. 54 of 2009 titled as "Devender Kumar Yadav v. Ravinder Kumar Sanghi".

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he leased out shop in dispute to the defendant on a monthly rent of '685/- w.e.f. 01.01.1988. He claimed that the shop in question was newly constructed after getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee and is not covered under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) in view of Section 1(3). The plaintiff, therefore, terminated the tenancy of defendant w.e.f. 30.09.1995 by serving a notice upon him under the general law. It was alleged that defendant had given an assurance to vacate the shop (demised premises) but despite several notices, the vacant possession was not handed over, therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit in the Civil Court. In reply, the defendant besides denying the rate of rent also denied relationship of landlord and tenant. The validity of notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was also assailed on the ground that it is not in accordance with law and the tenancy has never been terminated. The plaintiff filed the replication to contradict the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. Due to the variations in the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court :-