PARMA NAND Vs. BAL KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant Parma Nand filed the suit for possession of a plot measuring 463 square yards, situated in Mohindergarh, alleging that Mam Chand, defendant, was the tenant under him. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, in appeal, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the said decree of the trial Court on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the plot in dispute was within the municipal limit and, therefore, its jurisdiction as such was barred. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that the plot in dispute does not fall within the definition of 'rented land' under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (for short 'the Act') as it was never let out for the purpose of trade or business. Even the rent-note, Exhibit PA, dated 29th August, 1965, does not contain the purpose for which it was let out. Thus, argued the learned counsel, since the plot in dispute was not within the definition of the 'rented land', the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit even if it was situated within the municipal limits of Mohindergarh.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that no finding has been given by either of the Court below as to whether the plot in dispute falls within the definition of rented land under the Act or not ? It could not be disputed that if it does not fall within the said definition then the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. For that purpose, it is necessary to find out as to for what purpose the plot in dispute was rented out by the plaintiff to the deceased-tenant Mam Chand. Under these circumstances', it has become necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter to get a report of the trial Court on this issue.