RSA No. 3988 of 2009

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 3988 of 2009

Date of decision 07.09.2010.

Gurpreet Singh and another

...... Appellants.

versus

Sanjeev Jindal and another

...... Respondents.

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.

Present : Mr. S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with

Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the respondents.

K.C.PURI, J.

This is regular second appeal directed by appellants-defendants

against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2009 passed by Shri S.K.Garg,

Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali vide which the appeal

preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2008

passed by Shri Lalit Kumar Singla, Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), SAS Nagar Mohali was dismissed.

The facts of the case as set up in the plaint are that plaintiffs

have filed suit for a decree for possession after ejectment of defendants from

property in dispute and for recovery of Rs.36,432/- on account of the use

and occupation of demised premises and for a decree for recovery at the rate

of Rs.16,000/- per month from 1.6.2004 till vacation of the demised

premises on account of damages, and further use and occupation of the

RSA No. 3988 of 2009

2

demised premises.

It has been averred by the plaintiffs that defendants were

inducted as tenant in the demised premises in the year 1987 by Barinder

Singh son of Jagat Singh, who sold the same to plaintiffs in February 2003

and thereafter defendants started paying rent of Ist floor of SCF No.27,

Phase 3B2 Mohali, to plaintiffs w. e. f. 1.4.2003 at the rate of Rs.3200/-

and the defendants have paid rent till 31.10.2003. there was an

understanding between Barinder Singh prior owner as well as defendant that

the rent shall be increased by 15% after expiry of every three years.

Therefore, the increase is due w.e.f. 1.9.2004. The plaintiffs do not intend

to keep defendant as a tenant, therefore, tenancy stood terminated w.e.f.

10.3.2004. It has been further averred that after termination of the tenancy,

possession of the defendant is unauthorized. The plaintiffs are, therefore,

entitled to rent at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month after termination of

tenancy as prevalent market rent. The defendants have not paid the rent of

the demised premises w.e.f. 1.11.2003 @ Rs.3200/- per month and from

1.5.2004 @ Rs.16,000/- per month along with interest @ 12% per annum.

The defendants refused to pay the rent on the aforesaid rates, therefore, the

plaintiffs preferred the suit.

The defendants appeared and filed written statement in which

he denied and controverted the claim of the plaintiffs and took up

preliminary objection that the suit is false and frivolous, this Court has got

no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; no legal and valid notice has

ever been served upon the defendant ; suit has been filed to get the rent of

the property increased.

RSA No. 3988 of 2009

3

On merits, it has been admitted that the defendant is occupying

first floor of the demised premises as a tenant. The defendants alleged that

the rent has been paid till 31.3.2003 to the previous owner and after that the

rent stood paid up to 31.10.2003. Thereafter, plaintiffs have not received

rent on the pretext that the defendant should increase the rent or otherwise

vacate the property.

Following issues were framed on 6.6.2005 :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession through

eviction of the defendants from the demises premises? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery as prayed for?

OPP

3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try

the present suit ?OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPP

5. Relief.

Both the parties have led their resp