I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) RAM Lal deceased husband of the present Plaintiff, Smt. Kesra Devi (now Respondent No. 1 brought a suit for possession of two shops (fully described In the plaint) on March 6, 1973, against the Defendants (including the present Appellants) with the following allegations: 2. THAT Sh Bodh Raj S/o Bashamber Dass rented the shops in suit from the Plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/(Rs. fifty) vide rent deed dated 7 2.64, executed by him In favour of Shri Ram lal plff(sic) for eleven months that is upto 6.1 65. The rent deed is attached herewith That Sh Bodh Raj tenant died on 12 11 71 and he was a statutory tenant at the time of his death as the rent deed dated 7.2 64. executed by him was for eleven month only after which he has became a statutory tenant. 3. THAT Sh Bodh Raj had sub let the shops is question to Defendants 1 and 2 who are now in un -lawful possession of the premises in suit. In so case have they any right to continue In possession of said properly after the death of Sh Bodh Raj. Even during his life time the possession was not lawful, being sub tenant without the written permission of the plff 4. THAT the defdts 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of deceased Sh Bodh Raj tenant, so they have been impleaded as defts, being necessary parties. They should have handed over possession after the death of their father. The Plaintiff also claimed damage for the use and occupation of the shops in question after the death of Bodh Raj at the rate of Rs. 50/ -P. M.
(2.) OUT of the Defendants, only the present Appellants that is, Manmohan Nath and Pran Nath sons of Bal Mukand. cotested the claim of the plaintiff inter alia(sic) on the ground that they are not the sub -lessees from Bodh Raj and are rather the tenants of the Plaintiff and have been paying rent to Plaintiff even after the death of Booh Raj
(3.) THE trial Court put the parties on trial on the following issues: 1. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder and non -joinder of parties ? 2. Whether Plaintiff is owner of property in suit ? 3. Whether Defendants No, 1 and 2 have been paying rent of property in dispute, if so, its effect ? 4. Whether suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court -fee and jurisdiction ? 5. Whether Plaintiff is estopped from filling this suit as alleged? Whether Plaintiff has waived his right to file this suit ? 5. WHAT is the effect of non -supply of copy of plan filed ? 8 Relief Ultimately the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed by granting the relief of possession against all the Defendants and for Rs 750/ - by way of damages and compensation for use and occupation against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, that is, the applicants 3. The solitary contention of Mr. H. L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants is that keeping in view the case set up by the Plaintiff in the plaint as indicated above, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit(sic). According to the learned Counsel relationship of landlord and tenant was subsisting between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and in this view of the matter only the Pent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, could, if at all, give the relief of possession to the Plaintiff and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was completely barred. Though no specific issue had been framed in the case with regard to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try this suit, yet the arguments raised being purely legal, I have allowed the learned Counsel to argue this aspect of the case. While advancing the argument, the learned Counsel submits (hat it is the admitted case of the Plaintiff that the shops in question were rented to Shri Bodh Raj on February, 7, 1964, for a period of eleven months, that is, up to January 6, 1965 and thereafter Shri Bodh Raj acquired the status of a statutory tenant and bad sublet the shops to the present Appellants the tenancy of Bodh Rajer the present Appellants had never come to an end the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession to the Plaintiff For this proposition, the learned Counsel relies on a Full Beneh judgment of this Court in Sowan Ram v. Gobinda Ram end another,, 1980(1)R. C. 21 (Civil Revision No. 1324 of 197S) decided on October 15, 1979, (Since reported in, 1980 (1) R C.R. 21.) In that case the question referred to the Full Bench was whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred from the field covered specifically and squarely by the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 ? The Full Bench, after adverting to the provisions of the said Act and the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, answered the above question in affirmative and hold that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession or eviction of the tenant where the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.;