SHIV KUMAR Vs. RAKESH KUMAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS -Rakesh Kumar and Smt. Meenu Sanghi had filed a suit for possession of the shop. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 16.2.2002 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 19.9.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant.

(2.) THE facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:

(3.) THE defendant filed written statement while admitting his tenancy over the shop in dispute but asserted that earlier. Sh. Brij Kishore was tenant on the shop in dispute under its previous owners since 1983. The defendant was a business partner with said Brij Kishore and was doing business as an active partner in the shop in dispute since 1983 but later on their partnership was dissolved and he executed a fresh rent note on 11.7.1983 in favour of Raghbir Singh and rent with house -tax of the shop in dispute was agreed between the defendants and Raghbir Singh at at Rs. 562.50 per month. The defendant with Brij Kishore started business in the shop in dispute in the month of August, 1983 after obtaining sale tax number. The Municipal Committee also served a notice dated 22.7.1983 to Raghbir Singh about unauthorized construction raised by him and Raghbir Singh moved an application in Municipal Committee on 29:7.1983 compounding the unauthorized construction. According to defendant, the shop in dispute was completed by Raghbir Singh in June, 1983, therefore, Municipal Committee, Narnaul served a notice upon him regarding unauthorized construction and he deposited compounding fee with the Municipal committee . Since the construction of the shop in dispute was completed in June, 1983, therefore, the suit filed in September, 1993 is not maintainable and the tenancy of the shop in dispute is protracted under the provisions of the Rent Act. It is further asserted that Raghbir Singh submitted site -plan of the shop in dispute with the Municipal Committee for sanction on 2.2.1983 and later on raised construction. He has already paid rent to Raghbir Singh up to December, 1993 along with house -tax. He specifically denied receipt of any notice under postal certificate and also denied receipt of any notice through registered post and his tenancy has not been terminated by any valid notice. All other allegations of the plaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit.