SARDAR SINGH Vs. CHAMPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgments of concurrence whereby suit of the plaintiff for possession was decreed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF instituted a suit for possession of the demised premises having two shops and a boundary wall primarily on the ground that demised building was not covered under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 as-construction of the same" had not completed ten years and prior thereto a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the appellant-tenant to vacate the same. On the crucial issue as to whether the Rent Act applies or not, the learned trial Court thread-bare discussed the oral and documentary evidence and came to a firm conclusion (that the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable. Consequently, an order of ejectment was passed against the appellant. Aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal which came up for final disposal before the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Narnaul and the same was dismissed. It is against this judgment of concurrence that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) PURSUANT to notice issued by this Court, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Senior Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent and, on the basis of documents, submits that the statement of the counsel for the appellant, mentioned above, is not correct. He states that as matter of fact only one application for additional evidence was moved and the same was disposed of by a speaking order dated May 27, 1997. He has also shown to this Court a certificate from the Copying Agency wherein it is mentioned that in this case only one application for additional evidence was moved. All that the Court requires to say is that the learned counsel for the appellant was not properly briefed and leaves the matter at that.