GOBIND RAM Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD, AMBALA CANTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Govind Ram defendant-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1988 passed by Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from a shop shown by letters 'ABCD' on the plan attached with the plaint fully described in the head-note of the plaint. The suit was based on the allegations that the suit property was owned by the plaintiff-Board and was in occupation of the defendant appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 2/-; that it was initially let out for a period of 11 months and the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time, that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon the defendant-appellant requiring him to vacate the premises as he was a chronic defaulter in the payment of the rent; that a sum of Rs. 132/- as arrears of rent up to 31.3.1983 was due against the defendant appellant, for the recovery of which, a decree was sought; and that the property, in question, being a wakf property was exempt from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(3.) The defendant-appellant contested the suit. He denied that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner of the shop, in dispute, and consequently he was not a tenant under the plaintiff-respondent. It was also pleaded that the suit was not properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. According to the defendant-appellant, the story of letting out the shop to him was false, frivolous, and vexatious. He further submitted that he had been in possession of the property continuously for the last more than 30 years and had become the owner of the same by efflux of time and that the notice given to him was, therefore illegal, null and void and not binding upon him. He also denied that the suit property was exempt from the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. It was further averred by the defendant-appellant that there was no agreement between the parties for the payment of rent and the suit was barred by time.