SURINDER SOOD Vs. MANOJ TALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent -plaintiff -landlord Manoj Talwar s/o Gyan Chand (for brevity "the plaintiff -landlord"), has instituted the civil suit for a decree of possession, by way of ejectment and for recovery of amount of mesne profits against petitioner -defendant -tenant Surinder Sood s/o Pirthi Singh (for short "the defendant -tenant"), in respect of the house in dispute.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the petitioner -defendant -tenant has moved an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, on the ground that The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rent Act") became operational in the area, where the property in dispute was situated, by virtue of notification dated 2.6.2008. The plaintiff -landlord refuted his claim, filed the reply and asserted that the Rent Act is not applicable in the present case, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the facts and entire material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application of the defendant -tenant, by means of impugned order dated 9.6.2012 (Annexure P -1).