SMT. SARLA DEVI Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

(2.) THE appellant had let out her vacant land vide rent note Ex.P1 and admittedly the said rent note did not specify the exact purpose for which it was let out. After the lease period, the appellant filed the instant suit for possession by way of eviction. The plea of the respondent was that the said land had always been used as coal depot and thus, it came within the definition of 'rented land' under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and consequently, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that even though the rent note was silent yet in fact the property was being used as coal depot i.e. principally for 'business or trade'. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence which renders them so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of CPC. The following questions have been proposed: