Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.3763 of 2013 (O&M) [1].****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3763 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2014 Life Insurance Corporation of India ...Appellant Versus Balwinderjit Kalia ...Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant.
***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of `6,66,727/-, out of which `4,16,727/- was claimed towards rent and `2,50,000/- as interest.
It is alleged that the defendant took the demised premises on rent @ `4,800/- per month in the year 1984, with increase of 15% every five yeaRs.The rent was increased from time to time and in the year 2000, it was `7,311/- per month.
It is alleged that since the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f.01.06.2004, therefore, the plaintiff filed application for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which was allowed on 29.01.2008 by the learned Rent Controller, Baba Bakala and the ejectment of the defendant was ordered.
In the said ejectment order, the learned Rent Controller also held that the rate of rent was `4,800/- per Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.3763 of 2013 (O&M) [2].****** month with 15% increase after every 5 yeaRs.which was `7,311/- per month at present and the defendant is in arrears of rent w.e.f.01.06.2004 along with the house tax.
It is further alleged that the defendant is still in possession of the demised premises and has not vacated the same from 01.06.2004 to 27.02.2009.
In reply, the defendant urged that they have vacated the demised premises and delivered its vacant possession to the plaintiff on 30.07.2004 with acknowledgment by the plaintiff vide letter dated 31.07.2004 addressed to the Branch Manager of the LIC, Rayya.
At the time of handing over the vacant possession, the “safe”.
belonging to the defendant could not be removed for want of specialized labour.
The plaintiff himself requested the Branch Manager to remove the said “safe”.
with the specialized and skilled labour in order to avoid any damage to the building.
It is alleged that the plaintiff did not allow the Branch Manager to remove the said “safe”.
in which public money was kept.
It is also alleged that the defendant has been working in another building situated at Rayya w.e.f.31.07.2004 after vacating the demised premises on 30.07.2004 and delivering the possession thereof to the plaintiff on the same day.
The rent at the time of vacation of the demised premises was `6,375/- per month.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of `6,66,727/- as arrears of rent?.OPP.
2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate?.OPP.
Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.3763 of 2013 (O&M) [3].****** 3.
Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?.OPD.
4.
Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court at the time of filing of the present suit?.OPD.
5.
Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction?.OPD.
6.
Relief.”
.
In order to prove his case, plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and tendered into evidence copy of order dated 29.01.2008 (Ex.P1).copy of order dated 22.01.2009 (Ex.P2).copy of order dated 16.03.2011 (Ex.P3).copy of warrants (Ex.P4).certified copy of report of balliff (Ex.P5) and certified copy of sapurdarinama (Ex.P6).whereas the defendant examined Rattan Singh, Branch Manager, LIC Branch, Rayya, as DW1, Jagdish Mitter, Deed Writer, as DW2, Gurnam Singh, Nambardar as DW3 and Makhan Singh, Manager Legal of LIC as DW4.
The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent @ `7,311/- per month for three yeaRs.immediately preceding the date of filing of the suit along with interest @ 9% per annum on the total recoverable amount, along with pendente lite interest from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree @ 9% per annum along with the future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree till the realization of the decretal amount.
The defendant filed the appeal which has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court observing that the defendant did not hand over vacant possession of the entire Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.3763 of 2013 (O&M) [4].****** demised premises as its “safe”.
was still lying there and did not believe the defendant that the plaintiff restrained entry of the defendant and is to be blamed on the ground that nothing has been brought on record to show that the defendant had ever made a complaint to the police in this regard or served any kind of notice to the plaintiff to initiate any legal proceedings against him.
The learned lower Appellate Court also took note of the ejectment order dated 29.01.2008 (Ex.P1) in which the learned Rent Controller concluded that the defendant is in arrears of rent w.e.f.01.06.2004 @ `7,311/- per month along with house tax.
It is also observed that the defendant filed application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller but the application was dismissed on 22.01.2009.
After discussing the documents brought on record by the defendant, it was observed that merely renting out alternative premises at Rayya by the defendant would not prove that they have given actual physical possession to the plaintiff because the “safe”.
was still lying there.
Counsel for the appellant has argued that it may be some error on the part of the official of the defendant for not reporting the matter to the police while the plaintiff did not allow them to enter the demised premises for the purpose of removing the “safe”.
but for that matter he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong in order to claim arrears of rent from the defendant.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and after examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the argument raised by the counsel for the Kumar Vinod 2014.01.31 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.3763 of 2013 (O&M) [5].****** appellant in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
As a matter of fact, it has also been concluded by the learned Rent Controller that the defendant is in arrears of rent from 01.06.2004 and the ex-parte order passed by the learned Rent Controller could not be successfully challenged by the defendant.
If the plaintiff was not allowing the defendant to enter the demised premises for the purpose of removing the “safe”.
with the help of skilled labour, it could have approached the police or filed some legal proceedings against the plaintiff for retrieving the “safe”.
which could have proved the bona fides of the defendant in the context of delivery of actual physical possession.
Otherwise, once the “safe”.
of the defendant is not removed by the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been in a position to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the next tenant.
Therefore, the plaintiff has rightly filed the suit for recovery of the arrears of rent which has been decreed by both the Courts below on the basis of the evidence led by the parties.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below nor do I find involvement of any question of law much-less substantial for the purpose of interfering in this appeal.
Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
January 27, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE