NAIB SINGH Vs. SATYA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of the disputed shop and for recovery of mesne profits. The suit was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Kurukshetra on 27th September, 2001. The construction was held to be more than 10 years old and therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction to evict the defendant which power lay in the Rent Controller under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (Act 11 of 1973) which does not protect buildings less than 10 years old.

(2.) In appeal under Section 96 CPC, the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, did not agree with the trial court and decreed the suit thereby the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside and the findings on issues No.1 and 2 have been reversed. The dispute could not go to the Rent Controller as the jurisdiction was vested in the civil court for regaining possession of property, the building being less than 10 years of age and therefore immune from the rent restrictions.

(3.) The case set up by the plaintiffs was that they purchased the property vide sale deed dated 1st August, 1986 when the plot was vacant. Plaintiff No.2 rented out the premises to the defendant through registered rent note @ Rs. 700/- per month on 7th December, 1992. The defendant refused to make the payment of outstanding rent and the arrears accrued to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- as on 1st January, 1994. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 19th July, 1995 to the defendant to quit and asking for vacation of the premises and to recover possession by evicting the defendant from the premises vide letter Ex.PC in accordance with law. The defendant replied on 25th July, 1995 vide mark 'D'.