Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 718 (PNJ)

Gaurav Handa v. Amritsar Improvement Trust

2014-04-21

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2014
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiffs’ second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. According to the appellants, they are in peaceful possession of the shops in dispute since 01.11.2006 in terms of the lease deed duly executed by the defendant in their favour at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,800. According to the plaintiff-appellants, they deposited a sum of Rs. 10,800 with the defendant as rent for the month of November 2006 as well as a sum of Rs. 32,400 equivalent to three months’ rent for due performance of the terms of the lease deed. As per the plaintiffs, they further deposited a sum of Rs. 32,400 and Rs. 10,800 as rent for the months of December 2006, January 2007, February 2007 and March 2007. It is further case of the plaintiffs that they further deposited a sum of Rs. 10,800 for the month of April 2007 in compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. However, thereafter officials of the defendant-Trust did not accept the rent for the subsequent months. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were ready to deposit the amount of rent with the defendant-Trust, however, they were threatening to remove the plaintiffs from the property in dispute. The defendant issued a notice dated 24.07.2008 demanding a sum of Rs. 21,600 per month to be increased @ 20% after every three years. The amount demanded was against the lease deed as the amount of rent was fixed @ Rs. 10,800 for both the shops, which was now being demanded as Rs. 21,600 per month, and thus, necessity arose to file the instant suit. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of two shops bearing No. 22 and 23 situated on the second floor of Nehru Shopping Complex, Amritsar with effect from 01.11.2006 and were running their business. According to the defendant-respondent, on 30.07.2001 resolution No. 215 was passed with respect to the shops on rent located at Nehru Shopping Complex, Amritsar. As per the said resolution, the rent of shops No. 19 to 20, 53 to 56 and 79 to 81 was fixed @ Rs. 15/per square feet. According to the defendant-respondent, on 30.07.2001 resolution No. 215 was passed with respect to the shops on rent located at Nehru Shopping Complex, Amritsar. As per the said resolution, the rent of shops No. 19 to 20, 53 to 56 and 79 to 81 was fixed @ Rs. 15/per square feet. On 12.09.2006, the plaintiffs applied to the defendant-Trust for allotment of shops No. 22 and 23 located on the second floor of Nehru Shopping Complex, Amritsar on rent and the same were allotted to them @ Rs. 15 per square feet vide letter No. AIT/DK/8106 dated 12.10.2006. As per the site plan of the defendant-Trust, measurement of one shop was 16’.6” x 57’.9” i.e. about 720 square feet. There were ten shops located on the second floor of Nehru Shopping Complex, Amritsar and all the shops were of same size and rent of each shop was fixed @ Rs. 15 per square feet i.e. Rs. 10,800 per month for each shop. Possession of both the shops was handed over to the plaintiffs by the defendant-Trust. The plaintiffs also deposited a sum of Rs. 86,400 on 02.11.2006 i.e. Rs. 64,800 as security and Rs. 21,600 as rent of both the shops. At the time of allotment of the aforesaid shops, it was clearly stated in the allotment letter that rent of one shop is fixed @ Rs. 15 per square feet, which comes to Rs. 10,800 per month and as such the rent of both the shops in possession of the plaintiffs comes to Rs. 21,600 per month and security of both the shops for three months comes to Rs. 62,800 which was also deposited. It was further denied that the plaintiffs well in advance on 01.11.2006 deposited with the defendant a further sum of Rs. 32,400 and Rs. 10,800 as rent for the months of December 2006, January 2007, February 2007 and March 2007 as alleged. It was further denied that the plaintiffs deposited a sum of Rs. 10,800 on 19.01.2007 as rent for the month of April 2007, as alleged. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs deposited a sum of Rs. 10,800 as rent of one shop i.e. Shop No. 22 and had not deposited the rent of shop No. 23 with the Trust. According to the defendant, a sum of Rs. 10,800 on 19.01.2007 as rent for the month of April 2007, as alleged. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs deposited a sum of Rs. 10,800 as rent of one shop i.e. Shop No. 22 and had not deposited the rent of shop No. 23 with the Trust. According to the defendant, a sum of Rs. 4,21,200/- was due against the plaintiffs till 31.07.2008 and for that a notice was sent to them. Instead of depositing the aforesaid amount, the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit. It has been further alleged that plaintiffs have violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter causing damage to the property of the defendant-Trust by removing the intervening wall of both the shops. All other material averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After closure of evidence of the defendant, the trial Court heard arguments of both the parties and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.03.2013 held that the notice demanding arrears of rent cannot be termed to be illegal. However, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and they cannot be dispossessed forcibly except in due course of law. Issues No. 3 to 8 were not pressed by learned counsel for the defendant and ultimately suit was dismissed. The appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.01.2014. While dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate Court observed as under:- "Now to determine the above said controversy between the parties, documents of the parties are very much material. Ex.P1 is the lease deed, which is admitted by the parties. Ex.P2 is the one receipt dated 19.1.2007 regarding payment of rent to the tune of Rs. 10,800/in which it is mentioned that said rent is of shop No. 22 and 23. These two documents are only the documents on which the plaintiffs/appellants are basing their entire claim with regard to the plea that rent of both the shops is Rs. 10,800/- and not of each shop. So the notice of demand of alleged amount @ Rs. 10,800/- of each shop is illegal. But on the other hand, there are so many material documents which falsify the above said plea of the appellants-plaintiffs. Said material documents are firstly is the Ex.D1 which is a resolution No. 215 dated 30.07.2001. 10,800/- and not of each shop. So the notice of demand of alleged amount @ Rs. 10,800/- of each shop is illegal. But on the other hand, there are so many material documents which falsify the above said plea of the appellants-plaintiffs. Said material documents are firstly is the Ex.D1 which is a resolution No. 215 dated 30.07.2001. Perusal of the said resolution shows that the sub committee constituted by the Trust, assessed the rent @ Rs. 15/- per sq. feet of shop No. 19 to 30, 53 to 56 and 79 to 81. Shops in dispute are having No. 22 and 23 and fall within the above said category. Other shops have been assessed at different rate i.e. Shop No. 2 to 18 @ Rs. 17/- per sq. feet and remaining Rs. 14/- Rs. 12/- and Rs. 18/- etc. per sq. feet, which are not relevant for this case. Ex.P1 is the site plan of the whole complex which shows the existence of the shops as well as establishing this fact that width and length of the shops is of equal size, total area about 720 sq. ft. Ex.D3 is the allotment letter vide which both the shops No. 22 and 23 allotted to the plaintiffs. On Ex.D3 again noting has been mentioned that shop No. 22 and 23 at second floor have allotted to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 12/- per sq. ft. The counsel for the appellants is trying to misread the said document saying that said Rs. 15/- per sq. ft is pertaining to the area of both the shops but it is not mentioned so. But if the abovesaid allotment letter Ex.D3 be read in view of the resolution Ex.D1 then this thing clearly stands established that rent of each shop has been assessed as Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. Further Ex.D4 is again the letter in which it has been mentioned Rs. 15/- per sq. ft along with other terms and conditions that lessee has to deposit the rent of one month in advance and three months rent as security which comes to the tune of Rs. 32,400. This letter is dated 12.10.2006. Further material document is Ex.D5 which shows that in compliance of Ex.D4, rent has been deposited. Ex.D5 is dated 2.11.2006. Lease period of appellants-plaintiffs started from 1.11.2006. What it means that Ex.D5 is the first receipt. 32,400. This letter is dated 12.10.2006. Further material document is Ex.D5 which shows that in compliance of Ex.D4, rent has been deposited. Ex.D5 is dated 2.11.2006. Lease period of appellants-plaintiffs started from 1.11.2006. What it means that Ex.D5 is the first receipt. A careful perusal of the language of Ex.D5 shows that it is very much mentioned that the plaintiffs have deposited Rs. 32,400/as three months security of advance rent and Rs. 10,800/- rent of one month of each shop i.e. 22 and 23, that is why, in Ex.D5 for two times, amount has been mentioned as Rs. 32,400/- plus Rs. 10,800/- plus Rs. 32,400/- plus Rs. 10,800/- total Rs. 86,400/- with regard to two shops bearing No. 22 and 23 vide bank draft. If actually the rent of one shop would have been Rs. 10,800/- and appellants-plaintiffs would have to deposit rent of Rs. 10,800/- then why he deposited on first date vide receipt dated 2.11.2006 (Ex.D5) rent equivalent to two shops in compliance of Ex.D5. Furthermore, appellants themselves have not produced the said original receipt. As already discussed, the appellants are relying upon only the alleged receipt Ex.D2 but in said receipt it is not mentioned that said rent is for one month. But on perusal of Ex.D4 and Ex.D5, it abundantly stands proved that rent of one shop was assessed by the committee Rs. 10,800/- and at said rent allotment of the shop was made to the appellants-plaintiffs and the plaintiffs deposited the said rent as per receipt Ex.D5. So later on if appellants got deposited vide one receipt less rent of Rs. 10,800/- on which it even not mentioned that same is pertaining to two shops, he cannot claim and say that rent was Rs. 10,800/- of two shops when there is no such document to establish that said two shops No. 22 and 23 were leased out to appellants @ Rs. 10,800/- rather this fact stands duly established that each shop was leased out to each of the lessee @ Rs. 10,800/- at second floor which was Rs. 15/- per sq. ft, as discussed above. So the notice of demand of arrears of rent as per record of the respondent cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or unlawful. The learned trial Court has elaborately and in a reasoned manner discussed all these points. 10,800/- at second floor which was Rs. 15/- per sq. ft, as discussed above. So the notice of demand of arrears of rent as per record of the respondent cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or unlawful. The learned trial Court has elaborately and in a reasoned manner discussed all these points. It cannot be said that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the appellants-plaintiffs in a proper manner. So, there is no illegality or infirmity of any kind in the judgment of the learned lower Court." Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- (i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by ld. Courts below are based on conjectures and surmises? (ii) Whether both the courts below failed to appreciate that admittedly validly executed lease deed is the real answer to the dispute in question, which has been acted upon by both the parties? (iii) Whether ld. Courts below ignored the duly proved fact that as per lease deed (Ex.P1) Rs. 10,800/- per month has been fixed as rent for both shops? (iv) Whether respondent/defendant raised the illegitimate demand of enhanced rent, which is not in the terms of, admittedly, duly and validly executed lease deed by respondent/defendant? (v) Whether impugned notice smacks with illegality, arbitrariness and palpably an autocratic and unilateral act which is flagrantly in violation of principle of natural justice? (vi) Whether action of respondent/defendant is hit by law of estoppel and deserves to be set aside on this score alone as the covenants of lease deed bind the parties to suit, which have been duly acted upon by both the parties? (vii) Whether the courts below committed gross error of giving extravagant emphasis on a letter dated 12.10.2006 D4, whereas, execution of lease deed is subsequent act of respondent/defendant which was performed by respondent/defendant within its domain, fully conscious of alleged letter (D4)? (viii) Whether manifest injustice has been caused to the appellants? In support of his case, counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the defendant-respondent accepted the rent paid by them in terms of the lease deed and thus, the defendant-respondent was estopped by its own act and conduct to take any adverse action against the plaintiff-appellants in violation of the lease deed, according to which Rs. In support of his case, counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the defendant-respondent accepted the rent paid by them in terms of the lease deed and thus, the defendant-respondent was estopped by its own act and conduct to take any adverse action against the plaintiff-appellants in violation of the lease deed, according to which Rs. 10,800/- per month was fixed as rent for both the shops in question; and thus, the demand of enhanced rent as alleged, which is not in terms of the lease deed, was liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to the relief, as claimed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below would show that there is voluminous evidence on record to establish the fact that rent of the shops in question was fixed @ Rs. 15 per square feet. It is further not in dispute that area of one shop is approximately 720 square feet, meaning thereby that rent of Rs. 10,800 is to be calculated for one shop only, and thus, the appellants, who were put in possession of two shops, were liable to pay rent of Rs. 21,600 per month for both the shops. It could not be disputed before this Court that vide resolution No. 215 dated 30.08.2001 (Ex.D1) rent of the shops situated in the Shopping Area in question was assessed @ Rs. 15 per square feet. Ex.P1 is the site plan of the whole complex, which shows existence of the shops and establishes the fact that width and length of the shops is of equal size, i.e. total area of about 720 square feet. Ex.D3 is the allotment letter of shops No. 22 and 23 allotted in favour of the plaintiffs. Ex.D3 shows that the aforesaid shops were allotted to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 12 per square feet. Further, Ex.D4 is the letter wherein it has been mentioned that the appellants are to deposit rent of one month in advance @ Rs. 15 per square feet along with three months’ rent as security. There is nothing on record to controvert the aforesaid evidence on record and in view thereof, it could not be held that the findings so recorded by both the Courts below are perverse. 15 per square feet along with three months’ rent as security. There is nothing on record to controvert the aforesaid evidence on record and in view thereof, it could not be held that the findings so recorded by both the Courts below are perverse. No other argument has been raised. Thus, the substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise at all in this appeal. Appeal Dismissed.