BABLU SINGH Vs. KHUSHWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2010 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Pehowa, whereby eviction of the appellant has been ordered from the premises in dispute. Further challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2012 dismissing the appeal of the defendant-appellant filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) In brief, plaintiff's case is that appellant was inducted as tenant over the disputed premises on rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month for a period of 11 months i.e. from 01.07.2001 to 31.5.2002 and rent note was duly executed on 08.08.2001 by the appellant. It was further pleaded that the premises in dispute was newly constructed shop and the appellant was its first occupant. The site plan of the aforesaid shop was sanctioned by the Municipal Committee, Pehowa, on 10.3.1999 and the construction of the shop was completed in the month of June, 2001 and thus, the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), 1973 are not applicable to the disputed shop. It was further pleaded that after the expiry of period of tenancy of defendant, as mentioned in the rent note dated 8.8.2001, said tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time. Appellant has no right to retain the possession of the disputed shop whereas he was retaining the possession even after 31.5.2002 without making any payment of charges in lieu of use and occupation of the said shop and now he was in arrears of use and occupation charges @ Rs. 4,000/- per month w.e.f.1.6.2002. It was further pleaded that plaintiff-respondent requested the appellant many times to vacate the disputed shop after the expiry of period of tenancy and to pay mesne profits for the use and occupation of disputed shop which remained barren of results. It was further pleaded that the appellant was liable to make payment of mesne profits @ Rs. 10,000/- per month for the use and occupation of the same from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of the possession and on the basis of the aforesaid averments, the instant suit was filed.

(3.) Upon notice, appellant put in appearance and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections including that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. On merits, it was contended that rent note dated 8.8.2001 was fake document and not binding upon him. It was contended that appellant was inducted as tenant over the disputed shop @ Rs. 2,000/- per month, much prior to 1.7.2001 and the appellant was in possession of the demises premises as tenant prior to 2001 and therefore, the provisions of Rent Act were applicable to the disputed shop. It was further contended that at the time of inception of tenancy, rent was fixed @ Rs. 1500/- per month. It was further contended that at the time of letting out the disputed shop to the appellant, plaintiff-respondent had obtained the signatures of the appellant on the blank papers to get him under his control. It was further contended that appellant was a contractual tenant over the disputed shop. Thus, he has right to retain the same. It was further contended that tenancy of the appellant was never terminated and as such, his possession was not unauthorized and he was not liable to pay mesne profits as nothing was due towards him as he has already paid rent upto 15.7.2004 @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.