IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.04.2026 Dalbir Kaur and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Preneet Chattha and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for recovery of Rs.40,64,130/- was partly decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019 for recovery of Rs.34,64,130/-

alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.

2. Against the said judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019, two appeals were filed, the first being Civil Appeal No. 302 of 2019 filed by defendants No.2 and 3; and second Civil Appeal No. 344 of 2019 filed by defendant No.1. Both the said Civil Appeals were partly allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2026; whereby Trial Court decree was modified only to the extent of interest i.e. interest of 9% per annum awarded by learned Trial Court, was reduced to 6% per annum.

3. Present Second Appeal has been filed by all the three defendants which emanates from Civil Appeal No. 302 of 2019.

4. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants to assail the impugned judgments and decrees is that the Id. Court below has gone wrong in allowing the claim of damages on the basis of report of engineer Satwant Singh, total amounting to Rs. 5,64,918/-. It is contended that the said engineer had never inspected the premises in presence of the appellants nor any notice was issued prior to inspection of the site. Further, as per the claim of the plaintiff the premises was left on 25.9.2015; whereas the report is dated 07.10.2015. There is no evidence as to who had made any damages in the premises. Furthermore, apart from the solitary report of the said engineer who has been paid Rs. 15,000/- for preparing the said report, there is no other document in the form of the expenses incurred by the complainant in constructions etc. which has been placed on record in order to prove the claim of damage. Further it is claimed by the respondent No.1 & 2 that immediately after the premises was vacated a DDR was registered. The DDR though mentioned that the tenants abandoned the premises and did not pay the rent, however, it does not mention about the damage which has been allegedly caused upon the premises and as such it can be safely said that it is an afterthought. However, the ld. Court below has gone ahead in allowing the claim in toto.

5. It is accordingly prayed that the appeal be accepted and the Judgment dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, U.T. Chandigarh, thereby ordering for the decree of the Suit filed by the plaintiffs and the judgment dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge Chandigarh whereby the appeal filed by the appellant No.1 & 2 is partly allowed, be set aside in the interest of justice. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants. 7. The record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs/respondent that the Plaintiffs are owners and landlords of SCO No. 1028-1029, Sector 22-B Chandigarh. First and second Floors of the said SCO were let out to defendants/appellants through lease Deed dated 14.10.2010 (Ex.P2) initially for a period of 9 years from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2019. Monthly Rent was fixed as Rs.2 lacs which was to be increased by 5%, every year. Defendants had paid rent from 01.10.12 to 30.09.2013 @ Rs.2,20,500/-p.m.; and from 01.10.2013 to 31.7.2014 @Rs.2,31,525/-p.m.; and from 01.08.2014, defendants stopped making payment of Rent. Plaintiffs filed Rent petition for Eviction of defendants. However, d