JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - C. M. No. 1410-C of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 1411-C of 2012 : Application is allowed and Annexure A-1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal : Defendant Surjit Singh, having failed in both the courts below, has filed this second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Vikas Talwar filed suit against defendantappellant for ejectment of defendant from demised premises and also for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits along with interest. However, the relief of ejectment was not pressed because notification excluding applicability of Rent Control Act to demised premises with rent of Rs.1500/- per month and above was quashed, and therefore, Rent Control Act became admittedly applicable to the demised premises. The dispute remained only regarding arrears of rent. In fact, the said dispute was also regarding rate of rent only. 2. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant is tenant in the main shop measuring 10'-5'’ x 26'-0'’ on the ground floor in SCF No.20, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh @ Rs.2420/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. The defendant alleged that he had taken the aforesaid ground floor premises on rent from Dhani Ram, vide lease deed dated 25.02.1978 on rent of Rs.700/- per month, subsequently increased to Rs.1250/- per month. The defendant also alleged that he had taken one room on second floor of the same SCF on rent of Rs.750/- per month, enhanced to Rs.1170/- per month w.e.f. April 2001. However, room on the second floor was vacated by the defendant in September 2002 and possession delivered to the plaintiff. 3. Learned trial court held the rent of the demised premises on ground floor only to be Rs.2420/- per month and accordingly, partly decreed the suit for recovery of balance amount of rent for the period from 15.03.2002 till 31.12.2002 amounting to Rs.11115.50 with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2003 till recovery. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2011. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this second appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for the appellant contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the rate of rent of the demised premises. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this second appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for the appellant contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the rate of rent of the demised premises. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sawan Ram vs. Gobinda Ram and another reported as AIR 1980 (P&H) 106. The contention cannot be accepted. In the case of Sawan Ram (supra), it was held that jurisdiction of Civil Court was impliedly barred from the field covered specifically and squarely by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. However, that case pertained to ejectment of tenant from the demised premises. Field of ejectment of tenant is specifically and squarely covered by the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and therefore, jurisdiction of Civil Court is impliedly barred regarding the same. However, determination of rate of rent of demised premises is not covered either expressly or impliedly by the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 or by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. On the contrary, Civil Court is the only Court of competent jurisdiction to determine the rate of rent as well as to pass decree for recovery of arrears of rent. Rent Controller under Rent Control Act cannot even pass order or decree for recovery of arrears of rent. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the instant suit for recovery of arrears of rent is definitely not barred by provisions of the Rent Control Act. 6. As regards rate of rent of demised premises on the ground floor, plaintiff’s evidence has been found reliable by both the courts below. On the contrary, the defendant is guilty of withholding the documentary material evidence. The defendant allegedly sent rent to plaintiff by money orders and the plaintiff allegedly refused to accept the same. However, the plaintiff, in his cross-examination, was not confronted with any money order form received back by the defendant with report of refusal or with any money order receipt. Cross-examination of the defendant as witness was also deferred to enable him to bring the aforesaid documents, but in spite thereof, he failed to produce any such document. Consequently, adverse inference has rightly been drawn against the defendant-appellant by the courts below. Cross-examination of the defendant as witness was also deferred to enable him to bring the aforesaid documents, but in spite thereof, he failed to produce any such document. Consequently, adverse inference has rightly been drawn against the defendant-appellant by the courts below. Similarly, the defendant admitted that he is maintaining account books. However, defendant also failed to produce his own account books. It again gives rise to adverse presumption against the defendant. 7. The defendant in the witness box also could not tell to whom he allegedly surrendered possession of room on second floor. There is no documentary evidence on record to depict that defendant ever remained tenant in room on the second floor. On the contrary, the defendant himself pleaded the rate of rent being Rs.2420/- per month, but the defendant raised version of two tenancies. However, the defendant has miserably failed to prove the said version. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, courts below have rightly held that rate of rent of the demised premises on the ground floor is Rs.2420/- per month, as claimed by the plaintiff-respondent. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been rightly decreed for arrears of difference of rent. 9. There is no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to this effect. The said finding is also not shown to be based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. On the contrary, the said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on the basis of evidence on record. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant any interference. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------