JAWANTI DEVI Vs. BAWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 1st April, 1987 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri. The decree-holder petitioner had filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the 'Act') on 12th March, 1976 for the ejectment of Bawa Singh tenant-respondent No. 1 from a vacant piece of land. It was inter alia pleaded in para 2 of the application that respondent No. 1 took the vacant land on lease for a period of 20 years for commercial purposes on annual chakota of Rs. 60/-. This averment was admitted by respondent No. 1 in his written statement.

(2.) THE ground for ejectment pleaded in the application under Section 13 of the Act by the petitioner was that without her written consent respondent No. 1 had sublet the demised land to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is pertinent to note that in his written statement respondent No. 1 did not deny the fact that land was let out to him for commercial purposes nor did he deny the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain the application. The Rent Controller ultimately passed an order of ejectment against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 qua the demised land on 12th December, 1980. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal under Section 15(2) of the Act but the same was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala vide its order dated 3rd September, 1986. He then filed Civil Revision No. 3619 of 1986 Bawa Singh v. Jawanti Devi in this Court which was dismissed by me in limine on 8th December, 1986.

(3.) I am of the considered view that the learned executing Court has stepped beyond its jurisdiction when it launched an adjudication on the question whether or not the demised land was a rented land by framing the aforesaid issues. As already mentioned in para 2 of the ejectment application it was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the vacant land had been taken by respondent No. 1 for commercial purposes which was categorically admitted by respondent No. 1. Section 2(f) of the Act defines "rented land" to mean any land let separately for the purpose of being used principally for business or trade. It is thus clear that respondent No. 1 admitted that the land was rented out to him for commercial purposes which include business or trade. In fact, even before the High Court he did not attempt to withdraw his admission to the effect that the demised land had been let out to him for commercial purposes. It was, therefore, a dubious attempt on his part to delay the execution of order of ejectment when he raised the objection with regard to the jurisdiction under the Act as also the question whether the land was rented land or not. Obviously this plea could not be adjudicated upon during the course of execution of the ejectment order.