ARUN SHARMA Vs. USHA SUNDERAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by petitioner-tenant, is to the order dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P1), whereby the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Gurgaon has dismissed the two applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as the applications had been filed on the ground that the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, had been made applicable to the area where the suit property is situated w.e.f. 02.06.2008 and as such, the same could not effect the litigation already initiated. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mansoor Khan Vs. Moti Ram Harbhajan Kharat, 2002 AIR(SC) 2396 An earlier application had also been dismissed on 05.08.2010 and the proposed amendment in the preliminary objection No.5 could not be allowed as it would lead to framing of a new case and controvert the admission made in para No.6 of the amended written statement.

(2.) The respondent-landlady filed a civil suit on 25.07.2007 (Annexure P9) for possession by way of ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent with interests and costs along with damages for illegal use and occupation of the residential house bearing No.8003 DLF, Phase IV, Gurgaon. The property consisted of two bedrooms, two bathrooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen and the roof thereof. It was the case of the landlady that the property had been leased out initially for a period of 24 months from 01.02.2003. The lease agreement had been mutually extended for another period of 24 months starting from 16.05.2005, vide the lease agreement executed on 04.06.2005. The rent was to be increased to Rs.8000/- from 15.05.2005 and the defendant never used to pay the rent regularly and an amount of Rs.29,600 was due till 15.05.2007. The lease agreement was not renewed inter se the parties and the defendant had not vacated the premises as per the assurance given, after May, 2007 and neither he had paid rent after June, 2007. The plaintiff and her husband wanted to shift to Gurgaon which was a suitable place for her sons as they also wanted to settle there and were getting job offers from the NCR region. A legal notice was issued on 30.07.2007 for termination of the tenancy which was replied on 17.08.2007 that the tenant had spent Rs.1,91,403/-on the leased premises for getting the same habitable. Accordingly, the suit was filed by specifically pleading in para No.16 that the said premises did not fall under the urban area and the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was not applicable to the leased premises and the same were governed by the general law of land.

(3.) Written statement was filed that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the lease and the notice did not give any rise to the cause of action. The plaint did not disclose the case of bona fide necessity and that the landlady had not given any intimation in writing prior to the expiry of the lease. No notice had been sent as stipulated and in the absence of any breach, the legal notice was baseless whereby the lease agreement had been terminated. The defendant-tenant had spent a huge amount in making the property habitable. The fact that the plaintiff and her husband wanted to shift to Gurgaon was denied. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Court, there was no denial and it was submitted that the plea taken in para No.16 of the plaint is legal.