SUKHDEV RAI Vs. YOGINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2000 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ambala, who, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.6.1999, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ambala, who had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the shop, fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint and also granted a money decree for a sum of Rs. 1440/- being the arrears of rent with effect 1.12.1994 to 31.5.1996.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Yoginder Pal plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of a shop fully described and detailed in the head note of the plaint and he also made a prayer that a decree for a sum of Rs. 1440/-, being the arrears of rent with effect from 1, 12, 1994 to 31.5.1996, be granted in his favour. The case set up by the plaintiff-landlord was that the premises are situated in village Shahzadpur where the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 are not applicable. The shop in question was let out to the defendant at a rate of 80/- per month. The defendant did not prove a good tenant. His tenancy was terminated. Earlier a suit for possession was filed in the year 1987. That suit was contested by the appellant. The suit was decreed on 16.8.1994 and the defendant was directed to hand over the vacant possession. The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree which was allowed on the technical ground that there existed a Municipal Committee on the date of the issuance of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the notice in the said suit was not valid. So the judgment and decree dated 16.8.1994 were set aside. The respondent served another notice dated 6.5.96 terminating the tenancy. The notices were sent under the U.P.C. and by registered post. In spite of the termination of the tenancy the defendant had not vacated the premises. Hence the present suit.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed a replication in which he reiterated his allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement.