G.R.MAJITHIA,J - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial judge except under issue No. 1 where it held that it will be for the executing court to determine the question of executability of the decree passed by the trial Judge. The facts :
(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant/appellant from shop No. 652/W-3 situate at Panipat and also for recovery of Rs. 330/- as compensation for use and occupation from January 14, 1976 to March 13, 1976, besides a sum of Rs. 134.06 as house tax and Rs. 15.94 as notice expenses. Bhagwant Singh was initially the tenant on the shop in dispute. He vacated the same in September 1968 and handed over its possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff reconstructed the shop after obtaining requisite permission from the Municipal Committee, Panipat and gave it on rent to the defendant. The provisions of Haryana Act No. 11 of 1973 were not attracted. The defendant in the written statement admitted that he took the shop and a room rent it in the year 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- for commercial purposes. The rent was increased to Rs. 165/- per month in the year 1975. The plaintiff filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act No. 11 of 1973 with regard to the Chaubara (room on the shop) only and as such to suit could not proceed.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the property in suit was constructed anew after 31.3.62 as alleged and, therefore, this court has jurisdiction to try this suit ? 2. Whether the tenancy of the defendant was determined by a valid notice as alleged and if so, to what effect ? OPP 3. Whether the defendant has been holding over the property after the expiry of the agreed period of lease as alleged ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has filed petition under section 13 of the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act respecting the property No. 651 as alleged and if so, what effect ? OPD 6. Whether the shop and a room upstairs constituted one tenancy for commercial purposes as alleged and if so to what effect ? OPD 7. Relief. Under issue No. 1, the trial judge held that the shop was constructed anew in December 1968. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the tenancy was determined by a valid notice issued by the plaintiffs. Issue No. 3 was answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 4, it was held that civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the shop was constructed in 1968. Issues No. 5 and 6 was disposed of together and it was held that the Chaubara on the shop in dispute was not leased out under a single tenancy. The trial Court held that the Chaubara from where the eviction was sought under section 13 of the Act No. 11 of 1973 was constructed on property No. 651 and initiation of proceedings under section 13 of Haryana Act No. 11 of 1973 for eviction of the defendant from the Chaubara would not debar the plaintiff from seeking eviction of the defendant from shop in dispute under the general law of the land. On these findings, the suit was decreed.;