- (1.) THIS second appeal, preferred un der Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-04-2004, passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002, whereby judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 45 of 1998 is confirmed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for ejectment and mesne profits against the defendant/appellant from room No. 248-249, Block-II, of the Geeta Bhawan, Swargashram (Rishikesh ). Plaintiff/respondent's case in the Plaint was that, it is a Society registered un der the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is a public charitable institution. On 19-01-1990, defendant/appellant was appointed as Technical Officer and to facilitate him to discharge his func tions in the said capacity, he was al lowed to stay in aforementioned rooms as a licensee. It is further pleaded in the Plaint that the defendant/appellant was provided a gas cylinder with regulator and a gas stove. It is further pleaded that, since the building belongs to a Society registered under the Soci eties Registration Act, the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is not applicable to the building in ques tion. Otherwise also, the defendant is not a tenant in the building. Plaintiff further pleaded in the suit that on 08-03-1996, the services of the defendant were terminated and with that his li cense to stay in room Nos. 248-249 also came to an end. However, even after being asked to deliver the posses sion the defendant failed to vacate the premises in question. Ultimately, a no tice dated 11-05-1998 was served on the defendant terminating his tenancy w. e. f. 30th day of the date of notice. The defendant refused to accept the notice and got it returned and thereby his license has already been terminated. With these allegations, ejectment of the defendant and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month were claimed by the Plaintiff (respondent ). The defendant contested the suit before the trial court and filed his writ ten statement, in which he claimed himself to be a tenant in the premises in question. He also challenged that U. P Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applica ble to the building in question. It was pleaded by the defendant that Sri Chiranji Lal, Manager of the Geeta Bhawan has no knowledge of the Ayurvedic medicines and as a Techni cal Officer he (defendant) made certain advices to him which the Manager did not like and ultimately issued a show cause notice dated 08-03-1996 termi nating his services. The defendant had separately filed a suit No. 14 of 1996 challenging said termination. Claiming himself to be tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, it is alleged in the written statement that the tenancy did not stood terminated. Learned trial court framed fol lowing issues in the Original Suit: 1. Whether, the Plaintiff through Chiranji Lal was competent to institute the suit, if not, its effect ? 2. Whether, the defendant was in occupation of the premises in question as a licensee, and has the license been terminated by the Plaintiff, if so, its effect ? 3. Whether, the defendant is occu pying the premises in question as a tenant as alleged in the written statement, if so, its effect ? 4. Whether, the suit is under valued and court fee paid is insufficient, and has the court no jurisdiction to try the suit ?
(3.) WHETHER, the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Procedure, 1908 ? Whether, as alleged in the writ ten statement, the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ?;