- (1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure P3), passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Gurgaon, whereby the application of the petitioner-defendants has been dismissed on the ground that a prima facie cause of action is made out in the suit. The plea taken by the defendants for rejection as to whether the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction under the Rent Act or that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction, was a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, at this stage, the defence raised by the defendants, cannot be taken into consideration.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit was filed on 09.06.2007, for possession in the property in dispute and thereafter, on account of the constitution of the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon on 02.06.2008, the area had come under the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and therefore, the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to try the suit for possession by way of recovery of proceedings.
(3.) Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the order and submitted that the case is at initial stage and the Trial Court was well justified in dismissing the application since as per the pleadings in the plaint itself, the cause of action had accrued and there was no bar from the averments/pleadings in the plaint by which the suit can be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is also submitted that it is a matter of dispute as to when the construction of the property started and was completed.;