JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The plaintiff is in appeal. 2. He filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit but the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the learned Trial Court on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the area, in which the demised premises is situated, came within the Notified Area to which the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as the “Act”) became applicable. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the rights of the parties have to be seen at the time when the suit was filed and any subsequent change during the pendency of the suit would not affect the lis. In this regard, he has cited the following judgments:- (i) Shri Kishan @ Krishan Kumar v. Manoj Kumar, 1998(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 283; (ii) Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Panja, 1988(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 423 (SC); (iii) Basakha Singh v. Mani Ram Bhatia, [2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 156] : 2007(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 384; (iv) Harjit Kaur v. Sarabjit Kaur and another, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 74; and (v) Smt. Sarvjit Kaur and others v. Gurcharan Singh, 2010(4) PLR 154 . 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Sawan Ram v. Gobind Ram and another, 1980(2) Rent Control Journal 63; (ii) Mani Subrat Jain v. Raja Ram Vohra, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 299; (iii) Jagpat Rai v. Gurdial Singh, 1991(2) PLR 23; (iv) Krishan Lal and another v. Krishan, 2010(2) Rent Control Reporter 87; (v) Ram Narain and others v. Ram Lal and others, 2004(1) PLR 634; (vi) J.N.Katyal and another v. Krishan Kapur alias Bittu & Anr., 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 303; and (vii) Lakshmi Narayan Guin and others v. Niranjan Modak, 1985(1) Rent Control Reporter 27 (SC). 5. 5. I have discussed the aforesaid judgments in the case of “M/s Dhir Global Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Gajraj Singh” RSA No.3486 of 2013, decided on 10.02.2014 and held that in case the suit is filed when the property in dispute is not an urban property to which provisions of the Act are inapplicable and during the pendency of the suit, limits of the municipal area are extended, taking into its fold the area in which the demised premises is situated, it becomes an urban area and, therefore, the Civil Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide the lis between the parties even at the stage of execution as the tenant would have protection of the provisions of the Act in which specific grounds are provided for seeking eviction and the tenancy cannot be terminated merely by serving a notice upon the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 6. In the present appeal, when the suit was filed, the demised premises was in the rural area and was included subsequently in the urban area to which the Act is applicable, therefore, the Civil Court would cease to have jurisdiction to try and decide the suit and the proper forum for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant is of the Rent Controller where he could file appropriate application for seeking ejectment in terms of the provisions of the Act. 7. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------