Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Duni Chand – Appellant
Versus
Prem Sukh (deceased) through LRs. Yash Pal & others – Respondents
RSA No. 96 of 2022
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate.
Point of Law: Plaintiff was at liberty to recover arrears of rent by way of separate proceedings, therefore, it could not be said that either landlord was not having locus standi to file and maintain suit or same was time barred.
Headnote:
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Landlord - Arrears of Rent - Suit for Recovery - Suit was filed by landlord/plaintiff, i.e. suit for recovery with future interest- Rate of rent having been fixed was also denied and it was also asserted that plaintiff had betrayed defendant and on false assurances succeeded in taking possession of suit premises – In a suit for recovery only for an amount to extent of three years from date of filing of suit could be recovered. [Para 13]
Finding of the Court: Appellant himself had failed to discharge his liability and to vacate possession and he preferred appeal which was compromised, in which it was clearly mentioned that plaintiff was at liberty to recover arrears of rent by way of separate proceedings, therefore, it could not be said that either landlord was not having locus standi to file and maintain suit or same was time barred - Judgment passed by learned Trial Court demonstrates that learned Court observed that when defendant appeared before Court as DW-1, in his cross-examination, he admitted that rent of this shop was Rs.4,500/- per month and moreover, even learned Rent Controller in his decision dated, held that rent of shop was Rs.4,500/- per month - During course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant could not demonstrate that these were perverse findings or not borne out from record of the case - It is a matter of record and not disputed that matter with regard to vacation of demised premises was compromised by parties in course of appeal which was filed by appellant against order passed by learned Rent Controller - It is also not much in dispute that at time when matter was settled as compromised, liberty was granted to plaintiff to recover arrears of rent - In this view of matter, judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, plaintiff has been granted recovery of rent of only three months is a cogent and prudent judgment based upon evidence on record and upholding said judgment and decreeing by learned Appellate Court can also not be faulted with.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2018, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, (Camp at Rampur Bushehar), H.P., passed in Civil Suit No.RBT 12-1 of 2015/14, titled Shri Prem Sukh, through L.Rs. Yash Pal Singh & others Versus Shri Duni Chand, as also the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019, passed by the Court of learned District Judge Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2019, titled Duni Chand Versus Prem Sukh through L.Rs. Yash Pal Singh & others, in terms whereof suit for recovery filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed by the learned Trial Court for an amount of Rs.1,85,627/- and the appeal preferred against the same was dismissed by learned Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts necessarily for the adjudication of the present appeal are that a suit was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant, against the appellant/ defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was owner-in-possession of House No.67, situated in Ward No.-5, Middle Bazar, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P., upon which there existed three shops. The plaintiff had let out one shop to the defendant in the month of January, 2007 on a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-. A petition was filed under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the defendant by the plaintiff on 04.10.2010. The same was preferred before learned Rent Controller, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. The Rent Petition was allowed by learned Rent Controller and the tenant was ordered to pay a rent of Rs.1,39,000/- ( i.e. rent for thirty one months @ Rs.4,500/- per month) alongwith interest at the rate of interest at 6% per annum . The tenant was order to pay 10% of the enhanced rent after five years, i.e. an amount of Rs.4,950/- after 01.04.2012, which came to Rs.64,350/- upto the month of April, 2013 alongwith interest for thirty one months. In all, the liability of the tenant was calculated at Rs.2,17,262/- and he was also directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/-. The tenant was further directed to vacate the shop and deposit the interest and cost within a period of thirty days of the order.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was compromised between the parties before the National Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. In terms of this compromise the tenant was to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff on or before 01.12.2013 and the matter of recovery of arrears of rent interest and cost was kept open.
4. For the recovery of said rent interest and cost, a suit was filed by the landlord/plaintiff, i.e. the suit for recovery of Rs.2,70,000/- with future interest @ 12% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The suit was contested by the tenant/defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was neither maintainable and more over it was hit by the provisions of Indian Contract Act and the same is also barred by limitation. It was further the case of the defendant that he had taken a single room on rent from the plaintiff and the same remained in his possession till August, 2008 and thereafter, the plaintiff did not allow the defendant to run business as he wanted to enhance the rent and also demanded advance money. Further, according to the defendant on his refusal to do so, the plaintiff put a lock on the suit premises. The rate of rent having been fixed @ Rs.4,500/- per month was also denied and it was also asserted that plaintiff had betrayed the defendant and on false assurances succeeded in taking possession of the suit premises. According to the defendant, he was not liable to pay any
