VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession has been decreed. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from shop Nos. 1 to 5, 14 to 16 and the Hall shown in red in the site plan which formed part of premises No. 126-B, situated at Staff Road, Ambala Sadar/Ambala Cantt. and for the recovery of Rs. 7,500/- being arrears of rent @ Rs. 7,500/- per month, Rs. 37/- per month as Chhajja tax. Rs. 26.36 as interest and a sum of Rs. 40/- on account of costs were also claimed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent claimed to be owner of the premises in dispute which was said to have been taken by the defendant-appellant on rent @ Rs. 7,500/- per month besides other charges. It was claimed that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 13th of March 1989 calling upon the appellant- defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before 30th of April 1989. It was also claimed that the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 do not apply to the demised premises which was recently constructed. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on the plea that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. It was claimed that the suit property was situated within the municipal limits of Ambala Sadar and the Rent Act is applicable. The payment of Chhajja tax was denied. The receipt of notice dated 13th March, 1989 was also denied. It was further claimed that it was neither sent nor served upon the defendant- appellant. It was also claimed that the tenancy of the defendant-appellant has not been terminated. The rent claimed was also denied. It was averred in the reply that due to fire the property in dispute was destroyed and on the asking of the plaintiff and her husband, the defendant-appellant spent money on reconstruction which was to be adjusted out of the rent. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 3,19,882/- was spent on the repair and reconstruction of the building and the said amount was to be adjusted towards the rent as per the agreement. It was also claimed that the tenancy was permanent one. It was alleged that the plaintiff had agreed not to eject the defendant-appellant till he continued to pay the rent.
(3.) REPLICATION was filed in which a plea was also taken that the building was constructed in March 1985. No rejoinder to the replication was filed.;