SANSAR CHAND SUD Vs. CHUHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal from the order of the Senior Sub-Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur, the only contention raised is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit. This contention is based on three alternative arguments :-

(2.) To elaborate the argument it is urged that the present suit is not cognisiable by the Civil Court inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by reason of Section 13

(3.) In order to appreciate the above contention, it will be proper to set out briefly the relevant facts. Admittedly the land was a vacant plot at the time when it was first rented out to the petitioner tenant. Later on the tenant built two rooms on this land, and a shed. One of the rooms is used for tethering cattle. The other room is used occasionally for housing clients. (It may be mentioned that the petitioner-tenant is a lawyer). The shed is used for cutting fodder, where a chaff-cutting machine has been installed. Chuhar Singh, the landlord, brought the present suit in the Court of a Subordinate Judge at Hoshiarpur against Shri Sansar Chand tenant for his eviction from the land rented out by him. The land is situate within the municipal limits of Hoshiarpur and was rented out for the first time in the year 1953 at a monthly rental of Rs. 10/-. The tenancy was created by an oral agreement. For the first time a rent-note was executed on the 2nd of February, 1956 (Exhibit P-2 ). The period of tenancy in this rent- note was mentioned as eleven months. The rent was to be paid every month and was fixed at Rs. 10/- per month. The landlord alleged that the tenant had not paid rent from the 17th of November, 1961 and that he needed the premises for his own use. He accordingly sent a notice on the 11th of August, 1962, which was received by the tenant on the on the 16th of August, 1962 resquiring the rent from the 17th of November, 1961 to 16th of August, 1962 amounting to Rs. 94/11/- including expenses of notice etc. The notice was not complied with and therefore the present suit was filed for eviction of the tenant. This suit was resisted by the tenant on a number of grounds, namely, that the notice was not valid, that the property was either "rented land" or a "scheduled building" and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and that in any case if a decree was passed, the same would be inexecutable. It was also pleaded that the option to vacate the premises rested with the tenant. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-