SATPAL Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six regular second appeals, raising a common question of law, have been listed together for final adjudication. Four of these appeals, viz. RSA No. 861, 862, 863 and 2101 of 2005 pertain to Sadhaura, which was earlier administered by the Municipal Committee and by issuance of a subsequent notification dated 2nd March, 2000, Municipality of Sadhaura was abolished and a Gram Panchayat was constituted. The other two appeals, viz. RSA No. 2127 and 2129 of 2005, pertain to Radaur, the Municipality of which was also, by notification dated 2nd March, 2000, constituted as a Gram Panchayat by abolishing Municipality.

(2.) The tenant-appellant-defendant raised a plea that he is a tenant in the demised shop since the year 1960. He admitted the prevalent rate of rent as Rs. 300/- per month but he took a plea that when the tenancy was created, Sadhaura was a Municipal Committee and therefore, provisions of the Act would be applicable. It was further pleaded that abolition of Municipal Committee pertaining to Sadhaura in the month of May 2000 will not affect urban character of Sadhaura and therefore, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and eviction could only be caused by approaching the Court of Rent Controller under the Act. The trial Court formulated following issues:

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the same was not maintainable in the present form. The Court relied upon testimony of Gurnam Singh DW-3, Senior T.O. Accounts Office, who stated that relying upon 2001 census Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited had decided to treat Sadhaura as a city/town and therefore, the tariff of an urban area is applicable and not of rural area. The trial Court noticed as under: