JAGDISH PARSHAD Vs. LOKU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Sh.Loku Ram son of Sh.Gokal Das and his sons S/Sh.Shanti Lal @ Shanti Parkash, Bal Kishan, Pawan Kumar @ Partap and Ramesh Kumar, all residents of Narnaul had filed a suit against the defendant Jagdish Parshad seeking his ejectment from the shop fully described in head-note of the plaint besides craving for recovery of Rs.11,200/-on account of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1987 to 30.6.1990.

(2.) As per version of the plaintiffs, they being owners of the shop in dispute had let it out to defendant vide rent note dated 15.5.1981 on monthly rent of Rs.330/-; the shop is exempt from the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since the construction of the shop was completed in the month of April, 1981; since the plaintiffs did not want to keep the defendant as tenant, they served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the defendant sent vide registered AD post on 1.6.1990 terminating his tenancy w.e.f. 1.7.1990 and as the defendant did not comply with the terms of the notice, the plaintiff brought the suit in question.

(3.) On getting notice the defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit denying that the shop was let out to him vide rent note dated 15.5.1981. According to him, he had been in possession of the shop prior to that date. However, he admitted the rate of rent. According to him the shop is not exempt from the provisions of the Act and the tenancy cannot be terminated by service of notice and notice served is illegal and against the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Refuting the remaining averments in the plaint, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff had filed replication to the written statement controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.