JUDGEMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 7.12.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2003 reversing judgment, decree dated 30.9.2002 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2001. 2.Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent is owner of building situated at Purani Mandi. The respondent had submitted tender and offered accommodation to appellant No.2 on rent for housing its office at Mandi. The respondent had quoted the rent of the premises at the rate of ! 22,050/- per month. The appellant No.2 occupied the accommodation on 6.1.1998. The appellants invited the respondent for negotiation for the settlement of the rent of the premises. The negotiations for settling the rent were held on 9.3.1998 and the rent was agreed ! 18,000/- per month, which was accepted by appellant No.2 vide letter dated 19.8.1998. 3.The appellant No.2 paid the rent only at the rate of ! 16,272/- per month which was accepted by the respondent under protest. The respondent demanded the balance amount of rent from the appellants which was not paid. It has been alleged that the appellants were in arrears of rent to the extent of ! 62,208/- in addition to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent has thus, claimed ! 79,381/- alongwith future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. 4.The appellants contested the suit and have taken preliminary objections of maintainability, want of cause of action, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and estoppel. On merits, the appellants have alleged that the tender was issued by the Superintending Engineer (Operation) Circle, HPSEB, Mandi. It was stated in the tender that the rent shall be paid as per Departmental Rules. The respondent was called for negotiations regarding the rent and for settling other terms and conditions. A committee was also constituted for the negotiations of the rent, which was negotiated but the case pertaining to the hiring of the building of the respondent was sent to the Executive Engineer, Parwati Investigation Division, HPSEB, Mandi for assessing the rent. 5.The appellants admitted that the respondent had quoted the rent at the rate of ! 22,050/- per month. A committee was also constituted for the negotiations of the rent, which was negotiated but the case pertaining to the hiring of the building of the respondent was sent to the Executive Engineer, Parwati Investigation Division, HPSEB, Mandi for assessing the rent. 5.The appellants admitted that the respondent had quoted the rent at the rate of ! 22,050/- per month. The negotiating committee was not vested with the power to finally settle the rent of the premises of the respondent. The function of the committee was only to recommend the rent. The appellant No.2 had not agreed to pay the rent at the rate of ! 18,000/- per month. The appellants had been paying the rent to respondent at the rate of ! 16,272/- per month which was sanctioned by the competent authority. It has been pleaded that the suit is time barred, the appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit.6.On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the arrear of rent, if so to what extent and what rate of interest? OPP 2.Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD 6.Relief. The issues No. 1, 4 and 5 were answered in negative and issues No. 2 and 3 in affirmative and the suit was dismissed on 30.9.2002. The learned District Judge on 7.12.2004 in appeal set-aside the judgment, decree dated 30.9.2002 and decreed the suit of the respondent for ! 62,208/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation with proportionate costs. The appellants have come in second appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-1.Whether unilateral offer made by the plaintiff without having been accepted by the defendants can be termed to be concluded contract?2.Whether lower appellate court justified in virtually creating contract for the amount of rent above accepted figure of ! 16,272/- for the parties? 7. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned District Judge has erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. 16,272/- for the parties? 7. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned District Judge has erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. The learned lower Appellate Court has erred in not accepting the rent of the premises at the rate of ! 16,272/- per month. The material on record has been misconstrued and misinterpreted. The submission has been made for acceptance of the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned lower Appellate Court has considered the factual aspect of the case together with the law involved. The findings recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court below are based on facts. He has supported the impugned judgment and decree. It has been submitted that in second appeal re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. The submission has been made for dismissal of the appeal. 8. The substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are interconnected, therefore, both of them are taken up together for consideration. The question involved in the present appeal is whether the rent of the premises is ! 16,272/- per month as claimed by the appellants or at ! 18,000/- per month as claimed by the respondent. It is admitted case of the parties that the tenders were invited by the Superintending Engineer (Operation), HPSEB, Mandi. The respondent submitted his tender and quoted the rent of the premises at the rate of ! 22,050/- per month. It is the case of the respondent that he ultimately agreed to rent out the premises at the rate of ! 18,000/- per month. 9. On the contrary, the appellants have projected the case that the rent of the premises was to be paid in accordance with the Departmental Rules and the rent was fixed at ! 16,272/- per month. The rent at the rate of ! 16,272/- per month was paid by the appellants to the respondent. It has not been denied that the respondent received the rent at the rate of ! 16,272/- per month under protest. The respondent never accepted the stand of the appellants that the rent of the premises is ! 16,272/- per month. The respondent asserted that the rent of the premises is ! 18,000/- per month. 10. The negotiations were held on 9.3.1998. 16,272/- per month under protest. The respondent never accepted the stand of the appellants that the rent of the premises is ! 16,272/- per month. The respondent asserted that the rent of the premises is ! 18,000/- per month. 10. The negotiations were held on 9.3.1998. Ex.PW-1/D is the letter dated 9.3.1998 of respondent wherein he has clearly stated that he undertook to rent out the building at the rate of ! 18,000/- per month. Ex.PW-1/D is addressed to Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), HPSEB, Mandi. There is nothing on record that the stand taken by the respondent in Ex.PW-1/D was refuted by the appellants in writing or they denied in writing that the rent of the building was never agreed at the rate of ! 18,000/- per month as stated in Ex.PW-1/D. 11. Ex.PW-1/E is the letter dated 19.8.2008 written by the Chief Engineer (Operation), Central Zone, HPSEB, Mandi addressed to the Secretary, HPSEB. The perusal of letter Ex.PW-1/E indicates that the Chief Engineer( Operation) sought sanction for approval of rent of the premises taken on rent from respondent at the rate of ! 18,000/- per month. In case the rent of the premises was not agreed at the rate of ! 18,000/- per month then in how in Ex.PW-1/E the Chief Engineer (Operation) has sought sanction for approval of rent at the rate of ! 18,000/- per month, that has not been explained. No departmental rules have been shown that rent of the premises comes to ! 16,272/- per month. It is thus clear that the rent of the premises was agreed at the rate of ! 18,000/- per month. 12.It has come on the record that the appellants had paid the rent of the premises to the respondent at the rate of ! 16,272/- per month which the respondent has accepted under protest. The learned lower Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the material on record in returning the finding that the rent of the premises is ! 18,000/- per month and not ! 16,272/- per month. It has not been pointed out that the view taken by the learned District Judge is based upon inadmissible evidence or the evidence which goes to the root of the case, has been ignored. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment, decree. There is no merit in the appeal. 18,000/- per month and not ! 16,272/- per month. It has not been pointed out that the view taken by the learned District Judge is based upon inadmissible evidence or the evidence which goes to the root of the case, has been ignored. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment, decree. There is no merit in the appeal. The substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are decided against the appellants. 13.No other point has been raised. 14.In view of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellants in the Registry of this Court in the appeal be released in favour of the respondent alongwith uptodate interest by remitting the same in his bank account to be furnished by the respondent. The interim order dated 19.9.2008 passed in CMP No. 585 of 2008 is vacated. The application is also dismissed.