KAMAL BHATNAGAR Vs. S CHARLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against whom suit for ejectment and recovery of rent has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the defendant with the averments that he is owner of shop measuring 9' X 5', situated in Sector 7-A, YMCA Road, Faridabad, which was taken on rent by the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- vide agreement dated February 17, 1982. According to the plaintiff the construction of the aforesaid shop in dispute was completed in January, 1981, i. e. , after the commencement of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable in respect of the shop in dispute. It was also pleaded that the tenant has failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause and till May 9, 1984, rent has not been paid. Thus a sum of Rs. 5210/- was claimed as arrears of rent According to the plaintiff the tenancy was terminated by a notice dated June 4, 1984, and on the expiry of the period of said notice, the suit was filed on October 5, 1984.

(3.) IN the written statement the plea taken by the defendant was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 are applicable to the disputed shop It was denied that the defendant has not paid rent as alleged. As a matter of fact the plaintiff has not been issuing any receipt against the payment of rent though the rent was duly paid No notice was ever served upon the defendant and therefore, the tenancy was never validly terminated. The trial Court after framing the issues and relying upon the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the disputed premises was constructed and completed in July, 1981 and as such the provision of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, were not applicable. It was further found that the tenancy was terminated by a valid notice given to the defendant. The defendant has not led any evidence to negative such presumption which arises in favour of the plaintiff It was found that the defendant has nowhere proved that the addresses given on the certificate of posting and the registered cover were not correct. In view of this finding, the plaintiff's suit was decreed; both for ejectment and recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5210/- In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff.