- (1.) The appellants are the defendants against whom a civil suit for possession by ejectment was filed by the respondent-plaintiff, further seeking recovery of Rs. 1,49,120/- as arrears of usage and occupation. The facts giving rise to the litigation are that the respondent-plaintiff is the owner and landlady of SCF No. 7, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City, the ground floor of which was taken on rent by appellants No. 1 and 2, through appellant No. 3, at a monthly rent of Rs. 8000/-, for a period of three years commencing on 15.02.2005. The agreement in that regard is dated 05.02.2005. Since the appellants did not prove to be good tenants, as per the respondent, they were asked to vacate the premises on the expiry of the three year period, i.e. on 14.02.2008. Not having done so, a legal notice was served upon them, which also they did not comply with and consequently, the suit was filed, alleging in the plaint that they were in legal possession of the shop and were liable to pay mesne profits at a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- after 01.04.2008 to July, 2008, amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/-, other than Rs. 9120/- towards rent/occupation charges, for March, 2008. As per the respondent in her plaint, Rs. 35,000/- per month was the prevailing rent in the locality where the suit property is situate.
(2.) In the written statement filed in reply to the plaint, the usual preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action, jurisdiction, concealment of facts etc. were taken. On merits, it was admitted that the appellants-defendants had taken the shop on rent but claimed that the tenancy was perpetual. The tenancy agreement was not admitted and it was claimed that they were statutory tenants, further alleging that the agreement was a void document, not registered, and that the respondent had got signatures of the appellants on blank papers. It was also denied that they had committed any act which impaired the value and utility of the building and in terms of the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act, there was no ground for them to be ejected. They also denied the service of notice upon them, as also the fact that the market rate of rent was Rs. 35,000/- per month. A specific plea was also taken by them that the shop was not newly constructed, ever after getting the sanctioned plan dated 07.07.1998 from the Municipality and, as a matter of fact, it was alleged that the construction of the property was in existence since 1996 and by concealing this fact, the respondent had purchased the building by showing it to be simply land. It was further alleged that prior to the appellants coming into the tenancy of the building, it was tenanted out to various other people, even in the year 1996-97. There was a water place ("Pyaoo") in the building which was run by the husband of the respondent-plaintiff since 1996-97. The sanctioned plan itself was alleged to be a sham transaction, with the building being in existence prior to 07.07.1998. A replication was filed by the respondent, reiterating her stand in the plaint and thereafter, the following issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala:- "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of the suit property detailed in the head note of the plaint, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits/damages for illegal use and occupation of the suit property? OPP 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit, if so its effect? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from this court, if so its effect? OPD 8. Relief."
(3.) The respondent-plaintiff examined one Jagdish Singh, Assistant Lineman as PW1, Hari Singh, Upper Division Clerk as PW2 and examined herself as PW3. Darshan Lal, Building Inspector appeared as PW4 and Rajinder Singh, Draftsman as PW5. PW1 proved an application (moved by appellant No. 3) filed on 05.04.2002, to get the electricity connection in the name of M/s. Mohan Bakery (appellant No. 1), accompanied by a 'No Objection' Certificate from the plaintiff, alongwith which he (respondent No. 3) produced a copy of a ration card and rent agreement. PW2 also produced record of the electricity connection of M/s. Mohan Bakery in the suit premises and also deposed that an attested copy of the rent agreement, attested by the Notary Public, was attached in the file dealing with the grant of the electricity connection, which was duly granted. The respondent-plaintiff testified as per her averments in the plaint and PW4 Darshan Lal, Building Inspector, produced the record of the suit premises in which Form BR-1, was stated to have been sent on 07.07.1998, a copy of which proved as Ex. PW3/1. This form, he testified to be on account of sanction of the building plan. PW5, Draftsman Rajinder Singh, also produced record pertaining to the suit property, including a letter dated 28.1.21998, Ex. PW4/1, bearing the signatures of the SDO (Civil)-cum-Authority Ambala Improvement Trust, addressed to the respondent-plaintiff. This letter was issued on account of the failure of the respondent to complete the construction, thereby violating condition No. 5 of the allotment letter (of the plot), dated 27.03.1996 (after which a sale deed was executed). He also proved receipt No. 92, Ex. PW4/2, by which the respondent had deposited a fee on 19.05.1998, seeking sanction of the building plan.;