SIYA RAM Vs. CHAIRMAN, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the substantial question of law which reads as follows:

(2.) The material facts for the purpose of determination of the said question are that the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he is a tanant in Stall No. 10 of the Notified Area Committee, Rohru (hereafter referred to as the 'Stall') initially on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, subsequently reduced to Rs. 350/-per month and lastly reduced to Rs. 200/- per month as mutually agreed to between the parties, therefore, the notice dated November 17, 1988 served by the Notified Area Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Defendant') on the Plaintiff showing the rent as Rs. 350 per month and claiming the arrears in the sum of Rs. 6,300/- being illegal, void and unwarranted in law, is not binding on the Plaintiff and that the Defendant may be restrained from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the said Stall.

(3.) The suit was contested by the Defendant inter alia on the preliminary objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute in view of the provisions of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The relevant issue which came to be framed by the learned trial Judge on this controversy is Issue No. 9 which reads as follows: