JAGDEV SINGH Vs. BALWANT KAUR GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendant, who is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the suit for ejectment of the plaintiff was allowed and the defendant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of shop nos. 11 and 12 situated in Anmol Market, village Dad, Ludhiana (west) as shown in the jama bandi for the year 2004-05 and the consequential relief of the recovery of rent from 01.03.2007 to 31.01.2010 @ Rs. 4,000 amounting to Rs. 1,40,000 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was granted. The said order has been upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 30.11.2011.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent, who is the owner and land-lady of shops no. 11 and 12 had filed the suit as mentioned above alleging that the said premises were let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 by the husband of the plaintiff and after the death of the husband, she is the owner and landlord of the shop(s) in dispute. The plaintiff and her husband were settled in Norway and she was an NRI and needed the shops to establish business by her children. It was alleged that defendant was in arrears of rent since November 2005 @ Rs. 4,000 and the defendant had failed to pay the rent since November 2005. In spite of the notice being served upon the respondent, no rent was paid since November 2005 and under the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the tenant was bound to pay the rent on the first date of hearing, otherwise, the defence of the defendant was liable to be struck off. The property being situated at village Dad was out of the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and the defendant not being a good tenant committing default in the payment of rent, he had no right to retain the possession. The said suit was filed on 31.01.2010 and, therefore, in view of limitation, rent was claimed from 13.01.2007. In the plaint, it is also pleaded that the defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the suit itself, it had been admitted that notice had been served on the defendant by the husband of the plaintiff on 13.11.2005. In spite of the fact that the plaintiff served notice dated 15.01.2010 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in view of the fact that in spite of the receipt of notice, the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and failed to hand over vacant possession, the defendant was requested many times to hand over the vacant possession, which led to filing of the suit.

(3.) A written statement was filed denying the maintainability of the suit and seeking protection under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and that the suit was barred by limitation. Reference was also made to the pending suit for injunction and it was alleged that the defendant was paying rent @ 1,000 per month and the rent stood paid upto April 2009 and thus rent had been paid and t he demand from January 2007 was wrong and notice dated 13.11.2003 was served by the husband of the land-lady.