SMT. SHEELA DEVI Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1410, 1486, 1487 and 1624 of 1977 as the same question of law as involved in all these appeals.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present regular second appeal are that the shop in dispute situate at old Faridabad, which was admittedly constructed by the Plaintiff -Appellant after 31 -3 -1962, was rented out by her to Sohan Lal Defendant -Respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ - besides house -tax. He failed to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 160/ - for a period of 8 months. She, therefore, terminated his tenancy through a notice dated 14 -10 -1974 sent by registered post and called upon him to deliver possession of the shop to her. When he did not comply with the notice, she filed the instant suit for his ejectment from the shop in dispute as also for the recovery of Rs. 160/ - towards arrears of rent. The suit was partly decreed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ballabgarh, vide judgment and decree dated 6 -5 -1976. An appeal filed by the Defendant -Respondent before the learned Senior Sub Judge with enhanced Appellant powers, Gurgaon, however, succeeded. The judgment and the decree of the learned trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff -Appellant was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28 -5 -1977. She has, thus, preferred the present regular second appeal.

(3.) It maybe stated at the outset that the question with regard to the recovery of arrears of rent is not the subject -matter of the present appeal. The sole question which has been agitated is whether the shop in dispute is governed by the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Haryana Act), and as such the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to pass a decree for ejectment of the Respondent as held by the lower Appellate Court.