VINOD KUMAR Vs. NARANJAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge has preferred this appeal.

(2.) NARANJAN Dass plaintiff sought a decree for possession of shop a after terminating the tenancy of Vinod Kumar by giving valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act since he did not deliver the possession despite notice.

(3.) DEFENDANT put in appearance, filed written statement and controverted the various averments made in the plaint. The defendant denied that the shop was let out to him or the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month as alleged by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the shop in dispute was let out to M/s Vinod Kutnar An/i Kumar at monthly rent of Rs. 200/ -. The defendant further averred that the shop in dispute was in existence before 24. 4. 1973 and thus the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act') are attracted i. e. to say that the suit is not maintainable in a Civil Court.