ARUN BHANSALI,J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2/2/2017 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sriganganagar, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5/2/2016 passed by Sr. Civil Judge, Sriganganagar has been partly allowed.
(2.) The respondent plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellant pertaining to the property situated at village Kalia. It was inter alia indicated that the suit property was let out vide registered lease deed dated 15/9/2000 for a period of five years with lease rent of Rs. 1,700/- per month. The lease started w.e.f. 1/8/2000 and the period of lease came to an end on 31/7/2005. It was alleged that without consent and permission of the plaintiff, a big tower was erected at the premises. As the plaintiff did not want to continue with the tenancy, by notice dated 4/5/2007 the same was terminated w.e.f. 31/5/2007 by sending registered notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the Act, 1882'). The said notice was not responded by the appellant and the possession was also not handed over, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for getting back the possession of the suit property and mesne profit to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month was sought.
(3.) Written statement was filed by the appellant with preliminary objection that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It was alleged that there are provisions under the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act, 2001') for eviction and determination of rent, however, a civil suit has been filed which is barred by law. It was also claimed that after the expiry of lease deed, the plaintiff gave consent for additional rent of Rs. 450/- p.m. and the lease was extended. After 31/7/2005, the rent was received and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to terminate the tenancy. Further submissions were made that additional rent of Rs. 450/- sought by the plaintiff has been accepted on 1/9/2007. Validity of the notice dated 4/5/2007 was challenged and its receipt was denied. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed.;