L.N.MITTAL,J. - (1.) Plaintiff Suresh Kumar Gupta, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Disputed shop no.8 of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak (defendant no.2) was let out to the plaintiff in September 1993. In Government policy vide letter dated 05.05.1999, it was stipulated that the tenants be not asked to vacate the premises and rather, the rent be increased suitably. Plaintiff's case is that the rent was accordingly increased pursuant to said policy and a new tenancy came into existence. However, now the defendants have cancelled the tenancy vide letters dated 27.02.2007 and 05.06.2007, which are illegal and null and void. Tenancy of the plaintiff could not be cancelled or terminated through these letters being contrary to policy dated 05.05.1999 and also because provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short - the Rent Act) are applicable. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that the cancellation letters dated 27.02.2007 and 05.06.2007 are illegal, null and void, not enforceable and not executable. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said letters and from interfering in possession of the plaintiff and from dispossessing him from the disputed shop was also sought.
(2.) Defendants pleaded that the disputed shop was given to the plaintiff on lease vide letter dated 29.07.1993. Lease was up to 31.03.1995. Government policy letter dated 05.05.1999 was admitted. It was, however, pleaded that the same was withdrawn vide letter dated 26.04.2001. Allotment policy was revised vide letter dated 09.09.2005. The same was modified vide letters dated 19.01.2007 and 25.01.2007, as per directions of this Court vide judgment dated 26.06.2006 passed in C. W. P. No. 15431 of 2005 titled Lalit Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and another . Plaintiff's tenancy had been extended till framing of the revised policy. Consequently, on framing of revised policy, tenancy of plaintiff came to an end. He was required to vacate the shop. The impugned letters have therefore rightly been issued by the defendants. Various other pleas were also raised.
(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2011, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that during pendency of the suit, ejectment order dated 07.03.2011 ordering ejectment of the plaintiff from the disputed shop has been passed by Collector under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (in short - the Public Premises Act). Appeal preferred by plaintiff against the said order has been dismissed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, vide order dated 10.05.2011.;