LAWS(P&H)-1979-5-57

SURINDRA SHARMA Vs. RAM PARKASH

Decided On May 08, 1979
SURINDRA SHARMA Appellant
V/S
RAM PARKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute situate at Khanna, district Ludhiana, and for the recovery of Rs. 2070/- by way of rent on the ground that the suit property was leased out to the respondent on July 1, 1971 at a monthly rent of Rs. 230/- for a period of 11 months through rent note executed on July 15, 1971, that the tenancy has been duly terminated by serving notice under Section 196 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the rent from May 15, 1972 upto January 31, 1973 has remained unpaid. It was also pleaded that the construction of the building in dispute having been completed in July, 1970, the same was exempt from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called as the Rent Act).

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant who admitted all others allegations except the averment that the property in dispute was exempt from the provisions of the Rent Act and pleaded that the same had been constructed 7/8 years prior to the filing of the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) After recording evidence, all the three issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff and the decree for possession and for realisation of Rs. 1955/- on account of rent was passed against the defendant vide judgment dated July 30, 1977. Aggrieved by that judgment, the defendant went in appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated October 28, 1978 and the case was remanded to the trial Court for proper trial. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside on two grounds, namely that no issue was framed regarding the applicability of the Rent Act and that the documents, Exhibits P-1, P-1/A, P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 and P-6 did not bear the proper endorsement as required under Order 13, rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure. However, on both these grounds, the judgments of the lower appellate Court is unsustainable.