Back
2005 Supreme(Chh) 229
2006 (3) C.G.L.J. 1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
V.K. Shrivastava, J.
M.P. RAJYA SETUNIRMAN. NIGAM & OTHERS - Appellants
Vs.
JAIKISHORE JAISWAL - Respondent
First Appeal No. 132 of 1993,
Decided on : 30-6-2005.
Mr. J.D. Bajpai, Government Advocate, for the Appellants/State.
Mr. Prafull Bharat, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of promissory estoppel and the interpretation of Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Limitation Act in acknowledging liability and starting a fresh period of limitation.
Headnote:
Rent Recovery - Civil Suit - Sections 18, 19, 20 of the Limitation Act - The court held that the Collector had the power to fix the rent, and the suit was not barred for recovery of rent prior to April 1987. The principle of promissory estoppel was applied, and the acknowledgment of liability by the appellants prevented them from challenging the claim of the respondent. The court also discussed the provisions of Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the acknowledgment of liability signed by the party or his agent starts a fresh period of limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of rent from the appellants for the use of a plot and godown. The lower court decreed the suit for recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 85,941/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector had the power to fix the rent, and the suit was not barred for recovery of rent prior to April 1987. The principle of promissory estoppel was applied, and the acknowledgment of liability by the appellants prevented them from challenging the claim of the respondent. The court also discussed the provisions of Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the acknowledgment of liability signed by the party or his agent starts a fresh period of limitation.
Issues: The issues involved the power of the Collector to fix the rent, the applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel, and the bar of limitation for recovery of rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector had the power to fix the rent, and the suit was not barred for recovery of rent prior to April 1987. The principle of promissory estoppel was applied, and the acknowledgment of liability by the appellants prevented them from challenging the claim of the respondent. The court also discussed the provisions of Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the acknowledgment of liability signed by the party or his agent starts a fresh period of limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 12/ 02/1993 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No.5B/ 90, by which the suit filed by the plaintiff - respondent for recovery of rent Rs. 85,941/- with interest has been decreed.
2. The respondent is the owner of the plot bearing No.8/2 area 75072 Sq.Ft. The godown situated over the plot was let out to the appellants/defendants on a monthly rent of Rs.800/-. Subsequently, since 01.06.1983, the open area was also taken on rent and occupied by the appellants. Appellant No.2 wrote a letter to Collector, Bastar for fixation of rent. Collector Bastar assessed the rent @Rs. 1061/- per month and made payable from 01.06.1983, but appellants did not make any payment towards the rent The appellants were served with legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter claiming arrears of rent, from 1-6-1983 to February, 1990, i.e. Rs.85,941/- with interest, a suit had been filed by the respondent. The appellants have admitted that the, disputed land is in their possession and they are using it. For fixation of rent, they asked the Collector, Bastar, who fixed the rent Rs. 1,061/- per month, but now they started raising voice saying that the Collector, Bastar had no right to fix the rent and the rent so fixed is exorbitant and arrears of rent so claimed by the respondent is barred by limitation. The appellants further pleaded that the respondent has no right to recover arrears of rent prior to April 1987, and without execution of written contract between the parties, the respondent has no right to enforce his claim.
3. Learned lower Court, after due appreciation of evidence on record, held that, the Collector, Bastar was eJi1powered to fix the rent The suit is not barred for recovery of rent prior to April 1987. Up to February, 1990, the amount due as rent comes to Rs.85,941/- and the respondent is entitled to recover the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
4. Learned counsel for both the parties are heard. Record of lower Court perused.
5. The contention of the appellants is that, without execution of written contract between the appellants and respondent, the respondent has no power to enforce his right of recovery of arrears of rent. On the contrary, the respondent contended that the appellants are stopped to raise the issue by their conduct.
6. Ex.P 1 is a letter written by the appellant No.2 to Collector, Bastar, which bears No. 1064 dated 10-5-1985. The appellant No.2 in this letter has admitted that from 1-6-1983, they are using the open plot measuring 156x67 Sq.Ft. belonging to the respondent and prayed for issuance of necessary certificate regarding rent. The Collector, Bastar, vide Ex. P-4, a letter dated 14-7-19.88, issued reasonability certificate as also fixed monthly rent at the rate ofRs.1 ,061/-. EX.P-2 is a letter issued by the appellant No.2 to the appellant No.4. This letter has been issued on. 4-1-1986. In this letter, it has been admitted that the land is being used for storage of steel and its reasonability certificate and fixation of rent arc being awaited from the Collector, Bastar. Ex.P-3 is a letter dated 10-2- 1988. In this letter, Assistant Manager, the appellant No.4 has communicated the appellant No.2 that Nazul Officer has fixed the rent and a copy there of has been sent to the respondent. EX.P-6 is a letter issued by the appellant No.2 to the respondent intimating that for payment of rent, case has been sent to headquarter, Bhopal for sanction. Ex. P-8 is a letter, by which the appellant NO.3 has proposed the respondent to accept a combined rent of Rs. 1,500/- for godown and open land. From all these undisputed documents, it is conspicuous that, since 1985, the appellants are accepting in writing that they are using the land belonging to the respondent and are ready to pay the rent as fixed by the Collector. Despite the aforesaid conduct, on the ground of non-executio
