VIDYA WATI Vs. BAL KISHAN SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs - Smt.Vidya Wati wife of Sh.Bhagwan Dass and Smt.Raj Rani wife of Sh.Darshan Lal, both residents of 1084, Alugodam, Ambala Sadar, Ambala Cantt. had brought a suit against Bal Krishan Sehgal of Sehgal Provisional General Store, 1083-84, Alugodam, Ambala Cantt. seeking possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from one room/shop of the property bearing No.1083-84 depicted in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint besides craving for grant of mesne profit @ Rs.350/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till recovery of the possession.

(2.) As per the case of the plaintiffs, they are owners of the property in question, which was constructed and completed in the month of December, 1980 and was let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-; the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act No.11 of 1973 are not attracted in the present case; the plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy of defendant by service of registered notice dated 7.8.1989, which was duly received by the defendant but despite that the defendant did not hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiffs, giving rise to a cause of action to them to bring the suit in question.

(3.) On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit contending that the premises in question were covered by Rent Restriction Act, as such the suit was not maintainable. He denied that plaintiffs were owners of the property in question. On merits, he contended that the property in question was not situated in Ambala Cantt, rather was situated in Ambala Sadar, which was a separate Municipal Area; that the property in question was constructed earlier to December, 1989 and he has been in possession as tenant much prior to December, 1990 paying rent @ Rs.135/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.150, then to Rs.175 and thereafter to Rs.200/- per month. The defendant denied that the premises in question can fetch more than Rs.200/- per month as rent. He challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and decide the suit. In the end, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.