KRISHAN LAL Vs. BAHADUR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated 19.04.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal whereby appeal against judgment and decree dated 05.08.1993 passed by the trial Court was accepted, impugned judgment and decree was set aside and suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession and mesne profits was decreed.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent/plaintiff claimed himself to be owner and landlord of the shop in dispute which was constructed in the end of year 1986. The site plan for new construction was submitted to Municipal Committee, Kaithal on 05.09.1986 which was sanctioned on 31.10.1986. It is averred that the provisions as contained in Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short 'Rent Act') are not applicable in the case as suit was filed prior to expiry of 10 1 of 14 years of completion of construction. Krishan Lal had taken the demised shop on rent vide rent note dated 21.05.1988 on monthly rent of Rs.375/- for two months i.e. from 22.05.1988 to 21.07.1988. Despite expiry of tenancy on 21.07.1988, defendant did not vacate the shop nor paid rent thereafter. The tenancy was terminated vide registered notice dated 22.09.1989 served through Sh. K.K. Adlakha, Advocate, Kaithal, received by the defendant on 29.09.1989. Since the defendant did not hand over possession thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession as well as mesne profits.

(3.) The case of the appellant/defendant is that shop in dispute is part of residential building constructed much before completion of 10 years of filing of the suit. In the year 1986, plaintiff converted the front portion of his residential building into a number of shops including the present one by affecting minor repairs only. Sanction of site plan by Municipal Committee, Kaithal is nothing but an overt act on the part of plaintiff, thus, the provisions contained in the Rent Act are applicable to the instant case. It is pleaded that on 12.08.1989, defendant paid Rs.4500/- to the plaintiff as advance rent for one year from 22.07.1989 to 21.07.1990 against a duly executed receipt. Electricity bill is also stated to have been paid. The contractual tenancy of the defendant cannot be terminated through a registered notice because the defendant had paid rent in advance upto 21.07.1990.