- (1.) These six regular second appeals, raising a common question of law, have been listed together for final adjudication. Four of these appeals, viz. RSA No. 861, 862, 863 and 2101 of 2005 pertain to Sadhaura, which was earlier administered by the Municipal Committee and by issuance of a subsequent notification dated 2nd March, 2000, Municipality of Sadhaura was abolished and a Gram Panchayat was constituted. The other two appeals, viz. RSA No. 2127 and 2129 of 2005, pertain to Radaur, the Municipality of which was also, by notification dated 2nd March, 2000, constituted as a Gram Panchayat by abolishing Municipality. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court in these appeals, is: Whether the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') will be applicable and the suit for possession by way of ejectment is maintainable or not in terms of the definition of 'urban area' given under Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act. In other words, whether on the basis of evidence, the Court will determine the character of a town or a village to be urban or it will strictly comply with the definition to invoke provisions of the Act? Though the question of law is common, facts of each case are different; therefore, each appeal shall be dealt with separately. Civil Misc. No. 2267-C of 2005 in Regular Second Appeal No. 861 of 2005 The application is allowed and the documents (Annexures A-1 to A-3) are taken on record. Regular Second Appeal No. 861 of 2005 To answer the question of law, first brief facts are required to be recapitulated. Joginder Singh respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of Sat Pal appellant-defendant from a shop bearing No. 5, measuring 10 feet x 20 feet along with Varandah, the details and description whereof were given in the head note of the plaint. This Court need not to notice inception of tenancy and rate of rent, suffice it to say that the landlord-respondent-plaintiff served a legal notice dated 1st September, 2000 upon the tenant-appellant-defendant calling upon him to hand over physical possession of the demised shop within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In the notice, he also demanded arrears of rent with effect from 1st May, 2000 to 31st August, 2000 @ Rs. 300/- per month amounting to Rs. 1,200/- with interest @ 12 % per annum. Since the tenant had not handed over possession of the demised shop, the suit was filed for possession by way of ejectment and a further claim was raised that the landlord-respondent-plaintiff is entitled to recover the mesne profit @ Rs. 1,000/- per month.
(2.) The tenant-appellant-defendant raised a plea that he is a tenant in the demised shop since the year 1960. He admitted the prevalent rate of rent as Rs. 300/- per month but he took a plea that when the tenancy was created, Sadhaura was a Municipal Committee and therefore, provisions of the Act would be applicable. It was further pleaded that abolition of Municipal Committee pertaining to Sadhaura in the month of May 2000 will not affect urban character of Sadhaura and therefore, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and eviction could only be caused by approaching the Court of Rent Controller under the Act. The trial Court formulated following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the suit land by way of ejectment of the defendant from the demised shop, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1200/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.2000 to 30.08.2000 at the rate of Rs. 300/- P.M. and Rs. 200/- being the amount from 01.09.2000 to 20.09.2000 for the use and occupation of the demised shop? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1000/-per month from the date of filing of the suit till the delivery of possession? OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Relief.
(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the same was not maintainable in the present form. The Court relied upon testimony of Gurnam Singh DW-3, Senior T.O. Accounts Office, who stated that relying upon 2001 census Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited had decided to treat Sadhaura as a city/town and therefore, the tariff of an urban area is applicable and not of rural area. The trial Court noticed as under: 9............................Accordingly, it has been decided that for charging of monthly telephone rentals, the classification of the areas into Urban and Rural and viceversa, be made as per the latest Census Report of 2001. The monthly rentals based on such classification shall be implemented for all subscribers with effect from 01.05.2002............... The trial Court concluded as under: 9..........Taking this view of the matter, I am of the view that the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 are applicable in the case at hand and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit, which is not maintainable in the present form.........;