Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3310 (ALL)

Sunil Kumar Bhatia v. Ram Lal Arora

2014-11-07

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri P.K.Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the defendants/revisionists (tenants) and Sri R.B.Singhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.B.Singhal, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent (landlord). 2. The revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge exercising powers of the Small Causes Court. 3. The court below by the impugned judgment and order has decreed the suit of the landlord for eviction of the tenants from the shop in dispute as described at the foot of the plaint and for arrears of rent from 1.10.2006 to 8.4.2007 for a sum of Rs.20,015.73 and for damages pendente lite from 9.4.2007 till the date of institution of the suit 20.4.2007 amounting to Rs.10,325/- and for future damages w.e.f. 21.4.2007 till the date of delivery of possession @ Rs.28,158/- p.m. 4. Sri Jain has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to bring on record Panchshala of Kanpur Nagar Nigam relating to property in dispute, copy of valuation report dated 2.4.2010 submitted by one Sri S.K.Ahuja and the sale deed of property in dispute dated 14.6.1957 to prove that damages pendente lite and future have wrongly been awarded @ Rs.28,158/- p.m. as against the prevailing rent of Rs.3,194/- p.m. 5. Sri R.B. Singhal does not object to the consideration of the above documents. 6. The only submission on merit raised before me is that the agreement of tenancy between the parties dated 1.4.1997 (Annexure - 1 to the stay application) is an unregistered document and is not admissible in evidence. Secondly, in case the said agreement is considered then the security which has been deposited by the tenants has to be adjusted towards rent and damages payable. 7. The execution of agreement which is on record is admitted to both the parties. It provides for the tenancy of the shop for a fixed period of three years w.e.f. 1.4.1997 with rent of Rs.2000/- p.m. and that the aforesaid rent would stand enhanced by 15% every three years. It also mentions that the tenants have deposited a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- i.e. Rs.70,000/-, 70,000/-, 60,000/- and 31,000/- as security on which no interest is payable and that the security shall be refunded to the tenants on vacating the shop. 8. It also mentions that the tenants have deposited a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- i.e. Rs.70,000/-, 70,000/-, 60,000/- and 31,000/- as security on which no interest is payable and that the security shall be refunded to the tenants on vacating the shop. 8. When the agreement of tenancy is admitted to both the parties notwithstanding that it is unregistered, it proves the rate of rent and the deposit of security. None of the parties can resile from the fact so admitted in the agreement. 9. In view of the above, tenants are entitle to adjustment of security deposited by them in the final settlement of rent and damages. 10. Now the question arises regarding the rate of award of damages. It is settled that ordinarily damages can not be more than the rate of rent admitted to the parties and last paid.. The last paid admitted rent is Rs.3,194/- p.m. by periodically enhancing the rent of Rs.2,000/- p.m. agreed at the time of letting out the shop. 11. The court below only on the basis of valuation report of a private valuer held that the landlord is entitle to damages @ Rs.28,158/- p.m. without even referring to the prevailing market rate of rent in the area. There appears to be no material to indicate that the said report was proved in law. The court also failed to take note of the fact that the agreed rent was only Rs.2,000/- p.m. which was periodically enhanced to Rs.3,194/- p.m. In this situation the award of damages at any rate above Rs.3,194/- p.m. is not justified. 12. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of with the direction that the damages pentente lite and future as awarded by the court below shall stand reduced to Rs.3,194/- per month and the entire arrears and damages as aforesaid would be payable by the tenants after adjusting the aforesaid amount of security within a period of six weeks from today. Any amount which may have been deposited by the tenant under interim order of this Court or during the trial shall also be adjusted. 13. The defendants/revisionists are allowed six months time to vacate the shop in dispute provided an undertaking on affidavit is given by both of them before the court below within a period of one month from today that they will vacate the shop in dispute on or before expiry of six months. 14. 13. The defendants/revisionists are allowed six months time to vacate the shop in dispute provided an undertaking on affidavit is given by both of them before the court below within a period of one month from today that they will vacate the shop in dispute on or before expiry of six months. 14. The revision stands disposed of accordingly and the order of the court below stands modified to the extent indicated above.