J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal whose suit for recovery of possession by way of ejectment had been dismissed by both the courts below.
(2.) THE premises in dispute were let out to the defendant vide rent note dated February 10, 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- which was later on increased to 375/-. According to the plaintiffs the construction of the premises in dispute was completed in October, 1974. The tenancy was terminated vide notice dated June 11, 1984 and consequently, within a period of exemption of 10 years, the suit was filed on September, 18, 1984. Since the defendant was also in arrears of rent, the plaintiffs claimed decree for Rs. 3375/- as arrears by way of compensation for use and occupation. In the written statement, the defendant pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as the provisions of Haryana Rent Act were applicable. According to the defendant, the construction of the building was not completed in October, 1974, but it was in October, 1972 and therefore, the suit filed on September 18, 1974 is beyond the period of ten years of exemption. The trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs did not produce the documentary evidence to show that the construction of the house was completed in October, 1974, particularly the in-charge of the Housing Board, Haryana was not produced. At the same time trial court has found that even if it be taken that the suit was rightly filed in this court as the period of exemption was operative and the construction was completed in Oct, 1974 still law does not allow continuation of the suit of the plaintiff after the expiry of a period of exemption as it was prevalent at that time and suit was liable to be dismissed because the ten years period had elapsed during the pendency of the suit. Consequently the plaintiff's suit was dismissed vide order dated March 12, 1986. The said findings of the trial court were maintained in appeal by the Additional District Judge and thus affirmed the decree, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The lower Appellate court has observed that "even otherwise as the period of 10 years is concededly over (even if period of completion of construction is taken as October, 1974) the appellants are to be non-suited. This law on the point was clearly laid down in Ishwar Singh Punia v. Atma Ram Mittal, 1986(1) RCR 629 : 1985(2) RLR 495.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants submitted that from the documentary evidence produced on the record particularly Exhibit P-11 it was amply proved that the construction was completed in October, 1974 whereas the case set down by the defendant was that the construction was completed in October, 1972 for which there was absolutely no evidence. According to the learned counsel, even the water connection was given in the year 1975, which fact was admitted even by the defendant. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the courts below in this behalf is wholly wrong and illegal as per the evidence on record. According the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, the suit has been primarily dismissed by the Courts below in view of the law prevalent at that time which has now been finally settled by the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, 1988(2) RCR 423 : 1988 HRR 627.;