Point of Law: Mere recommendation of Board of Officers, which has not been agreed to by the tenant in this case, does not form a binding contract between landlord and tenant.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. According to the petitioner a building known as “Sukh Niwas” situated at Rajbagh, Srinagar, along with land measuring 04 kanals underneath and appurtenant thereto belonging to one late Col. Sukhdev Singh Samyal, was taken on rent by the respondents way back in the year 1968 on monthly rent of Rs. 900/- which was later on enhanced to Rs. 1500/- per month. Upon death of Col. Sukhdev Singh, his widow Smt. Chain Devi was declared legal heir of the deceased with respect to the aforesaid property and was she appointed her two sons, namely, Randeep Singh Samyal and Jagdeep Singh Samyal as her attorneys to look after the property and to receive rent on her behalf in equal proportions. The above named two persons received the rent of the building up to November 1989/March, 1991 @ Rs. 1500/- which was divided amongst the aforesaid persons in equal proportion. After the death of above named two persons, the rent was withheld by the respondents.

2. It is further averred that upon death of Randeep Singh and Jagdeep Singh, Smt. Sita Devi daughter-in-law of late Col. Sukhdev Singh Samyal was given the right to hold the property in question in terms of Government Order No. Rev (NDK) 111 of 2004 dated 10.06.2004. She appointed petitioner as her attorney and authorised him to look after the property and to deal with it.

3. It is further averred that on 30.06.2004, petitioner served a notice through his Advocate upon respondent No. 6 asking him to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs. 50,000/- from the date the same has remained unpaid and also to vacate the premises and to hand over its possession to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice. It is averred that respondent No. 6, in terms of order No. GWSP/A-1/2004-05 dated 06.09.2004, appointed a Board of Officers of Gulmarg Winter Project and authorized the said Board to conduct negotiations with regard to the settlement of rent. It is submitted that the Committee members held negotiations with petitioner and came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- per month should be paid to him as rent. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 6, upon receipt of report dated 14.09.2004 from the Board of Officers, addressed a communication dated 20.09.2004 to respondent No. 5 whereby he sought necessary instructions in the matter. In the meanwhile, respondents without paying rent @ Rs. 40,000/- per month as was recommended by the Board of Officers of Gulmarg Winter Project, vacated the said building in the month of December, 2004. Thereafter petitioner again served a notice through his counsel upon respondent No. 3 bringing to his notice all the facts and a request was made to get the loss caused to the building assessed and to pay arrears of rent w.e.f. 1989/1991 to December, 2004 along with interest @ 18% within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that despite receipt of notice dated 30.03.2005, no steps were taken by the respondents to pay the arrears of rent. In the meanwhile, in the year 2008, petitioner became owner of the property in question in his own right. After becoming owner of the property in question, petitioner again approached the respondents requesting them to pay damages on account of loss caused to the building as well as arrears of rent. Due to the persistent requests of the petitioner, a Committee was constituted by the respondents in the year 2011 to discuss the issue. However, the Committee did not meet and no action in the matter was taken. Ultimately petitioner served a notice dated 12.02.2014 through his counsel upon the respondents asking them to settle his claim pertaining to loss caused to the building and payment of arrears of rent of the building at enhanced rate of Rs. 50,000/- and 40,000/- per month.

5. With the aforesaid averments, petitioner has sought a direction upon respondents to pay the compensation on account of loss caused to th