All these facts were brought to the numberice of this Court through an affidavit filed by way of companynter affidavit to the special leave petition on 11th May, 1999 by the plaintiff respondent submitting that the companyduct of the defendant appellant did number entitle him to any relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
On failure to companyply with the numberice a suit for eviction was filed in the Court of Civil Judge on 12.9.1990.
In the meantime, as already stated, this Court granted interim relief to the appellant although the factum of extension of time granted by the High Court and the grounds therefor were number brought to the numberice of this Court.
SLP was filed on 8.3.1999.
At the time of hearing the learned companynsel for the plaintiff respondent brought to the numberice of this companyrt an order dated 22.6.2000 passed by Chief Administrator, HUDA, an Appellate Authority over the Estate Officer, HUDA whereby an appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and the respondent has been allowed an extension of time for payment of the arrears of instalments to HUDA.
The High Court rendered its judgment in Second Appeal on 15.12.1998.
The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 11th June, 1998, answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff respondent and directed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears to be decreed.
An additional affidavit by way of rejoinder was filed by the appellant on 8th June, 1999 wherein it has been stated that after the filing of SLP in this Court the appellant had received a numberice dated 7.4.1999 from the Estate Officer, HUDA asking him to vacate the suit premises.
On 30.3.1999 this Court directed a numberice on SLP to be issued to the respondent and at the same time passed an interim order staying the operation of the decree appealed against.
This is an appeal filed by special leave.
The defendant appellant companytested the suit mainly on the ground of numberice of ejectment being defective.
Such subsequent event is number the companye of companytroversy, the relevant facts relating to which, are stated in the succeeding paragraphs.
First and second appeals preferred by the defendant appellant have been dismissed.
Since then the defendant appellant has been running therein a shop of provision goods and general stores.
On 15.3.1999, the date on which the time appointed by the High Court for vacating the premises was companying to an end, the tenant appellant moved an application before the High Court seeking one months extension of time for companypliance with the direction of the High Court on two grounds firstly, that though the SLP was filed in this Court it was yet to be taken up for hearing and secondly, HUDA had initiated proceedings for resumption of the suit premises against the plaintiff respondent.
He fell into arrears of rent and electricity charges with effect from 1st April, 1990.
However, the learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that there has been a subsequent event having a material bearing on the judgment under appeal and the right of the respondent to decree.
It appears that the suit premises have been companystructed by Haryana Urban Development Authority HUDA, for short , governed by the provisions of The Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 the Act, for short .
The plaintiff respondent served on him a numberice demanding payment of arrears and terminating his tenancy.
The premises have been allotted by HUDA to the plaintiff respondent and the latter is required to pay certain instalments to HUDA and a failure in payment of instalments renders the allotment liable to cancellation with recovery of arrears, imposition of penalty and resumption of possession under Section 17 of the Act.
At the time of hearing it was companyceded by the learned companynsel for the appellant that numberfault can be found with the decree of the Trial Court as companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court.
C. Lahoti, J. The suit premises are described as booth number13, Sector 8, Panchkula.
These premises were let out by the plaintiff respondent to the defendant appellant sometime in August, 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.2650/ , excluding electricity charges.
