The plaintiffs must prove negligence on the part of the defendants and provide evidence to support their claim for damages.

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - Main Case

For convenience, parties herein are described as per recital before this Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by both the Courts below, the plaintiffs are in second appeal before this Court assailing the trial Court judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019, as upheld by the First Appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 09.08.2021.

3. Briefly stated, the facts as noted by the trial Court are that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner in possession of SCO No. 218, Sector-14, Panchkula and plaintiff No.2 is owner in possession of SCO No. 219, Sector-14, Panchkula. Plaintiffs are running a Restaurant and Banquet under the name and style of M/s Gazab India & Grand Maharaja on the ground floor and basement of both the SCOs. Defendant No.1 is the limited company having its registered office at SCO No. 18, Sector- 9/D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Defendant No.2 is a corporate branch office of defendants which has taken the first floors of premises of plaintiffs on rent. Defendants No.3 and 4, being Managing Director and Deputy Director of respondent No.1 respectively, are responsible for the day to day affairs of defendants No.1 and 2. The entire first floors of both the SCOs were let out to the defendants through registered lease deed dated 09.10.2013 for a period of nine years, on monthly rent of Rs.2,65,000/- excluding water and electricity charges. The defendants caused damage to the property in question and they were served with legal notice dated 09.06.2016. The defendants filed reply to the same and denied all the allegations leveled in the legal notice. Hence, the suit was filed.

4. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding improper valuation of suit; suppression of important facts; andplaintiffs not coming to the Court with clean hands. On merits, it was submitted that vide letter dated 14.05.2016 defendants requested the plaintiffs to repair/restructure the main structures damaged due to fire incident which took place on 11.05.2016. The plaintiffs did not respond to the said letter.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed :

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed for? OPP

ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

iii) Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts? OPP

iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD

v) Relief.

6. The parties to suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per issues, ibid.

7. On appraisal of evidencevis-?-vis pleadings, Issue No.1 was decided against the plaintiffs. Issues No.2 and 3 were decided in favour of the defendants. Issue No.4 was treated as given up. The suit of plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court.

8. Feeling aggrieved, both the plaintiffs preferred appeal which was also dismissed being barred by limitation.

9. I have heard learned counsel and perused the judgments of both the Courts below.

Findings rendered by the trial Court are inter alia premised as below:

'19. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to firstly prove the negligence on the part of the defendants so as to make out the case for their entitlement to any damages.

The plaintiffs have not brought on record any report of any government department to show that the defendants were negligent in the occupation and usages of the tenanted premises. The plaintiffs have come with the bald averments that the defendants had installed the electricity fittings which ignited the fire and caused huge loss to the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants have brought on record the report of P.S. Sector-14, Panchkula as Ex. D7 which clearly mentions that no any written complaint was made by the owners of the showrooms and the reason of fire could not be ascertained. This clearly shows that the plaintiffs did not both