JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff''s suit for recovery of arrears, of, rent was partly decreed by the learned trial Judge, and, in an appeal preferred therefrom, by the aggrieved plaintiff, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court, rather modified the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, Civil Suit No. 262/1 of 2002. Consequently, the defendants being aggrieved therefrom, hence motion this Court through the instant regular second appeal. 2. The subject matter of the present suit, is, recovery of arrears of rent along with interest with regard to rented out building of the plaintiff, situated at place Diggal, w.e.f. March, 1997 to February, 2002. It is averred that in the year 1987, the plaintiff has rented out his building to defendant No.2 @ Rs. 750/- per month. The rent of the aforesaid building was assessed by the H.P.P.W.D. authority for a period of five years. The period of five years has expired in the year 1992. Thereafter, the H.P.P.W.D. department again reassessed the rent @ 912/- per month for a period of five years, w.e.f., the year 1992-1997. As per the plaintiff, further five years agreement is to be made on the basis of reassessment. Defendant No.2 requested the H.P.P.W.D. authorities to reassess the rent of the building vide letter dated 22.7.1999, for five years. The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Nalagarh reassessed the rent @3015/- per month from March, 1997 to February, 2002. The Executive Engineer informed the defendants with regard to reassessment of rent and the copy of the same is also forwarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendants to pay reassessed rent @ Rs. 3015/- per month, w.e.f. March, 1997. The defendants did no pay any heed to pay the reassessed rent. The defendants have paid an amount of Rs. 912/- per month, w.e.f., March, 1997 to February, 2001 and the balance amount of Rs. 2103/- per month as rent w.e.f. March, 1997 to February, 2001 is to be paid. The defendants have also not paid any rent from March, 2001, to February, 2002 and as such the defendants are in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 3015/0- per month w.e.f. March, 2001 to February, 2002, and as such the defendants are arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,16,019/-. The defendants have also not paid any rent from March, 2001, to February, 2002 and as such the defendants are in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 3015/0- per month w.e.f. March, 2001 to February, 2002, and as such the defendants are arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,16,019/-. According to the plaintiff he issued legal notices to the defendants through his counsel under Section 80 CPC, but despite the service, the defendants have not paid any heed to pay the rent to the plaintiff. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, the have taken preliminary objections qua the plaintiff being entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 1003/- per month w.e.f. February, 1997 to July 2001, the plaintiff filed the present suit with dishonest motive as he has misled the H.P.P.W.D. authorities to assess the rent of additional accommodation on 12.06.2001 w.e.f. February, 1997 (retrospectively) which was taken in possession by the defendants in August, 2001. The plaintiff was requested by the defendants to execute the lease deed w.e.f. February, 1997 for a period of five years. On merits, it is admitted that the building of the plaintiff has been hired for the purpose of running Girls ITI at Diggal @ Rs. 750/- per month in the year, 1987, for a period of five years with the agreement of 10% enhancement of rent for every subsequent five years period. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 912/- from Rs. 750/- in the year 1992 for next five years i.e. 1992 to 1997. Similarly in the year 1997 with 10% enhancement, the rent will be reckoned to be Rs. 1003/- for next period of five years, excluding the additional area taken in the month of August, 2001. It is averred that the defendants were paying the rent amount regularly to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has failed to execute the lease deed inspite of repeated requests of the defendants. Moreover, he is receiving the payment of rent. It is further averred that the plaintiff dishonestly and in connivance with the H.P.P.W.D. department got the rent of his building assessed on 12.06.2001 at Rs. 3015/- per month, w.e.f. 1997 to 2002 (retrospectively) by including even that area which was taken over by the defendant in august, 2001. Moreover, he is receiving the payment of rent. It is further averred that the plaintiff dishonestly and in connivance with the H.P.P.W.D. department got the rent of his building assessed on 12.06.2001 at Rs. 3015/- per month, w.e.f. 1997 to 2002 (retrospectively) by including even that area which was taken over by the defendant in august, 2001. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no additional area till July, 2001 and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 1003/- per month till July, 2001 plus rent of additional accommodation taken by the defendants w.e.f. August, 2001 subject to assessment of rent by P.W.D. department. It is also pleaded that initially only the area of accommodation was 1050 sq. meters and additional area of 72.63 sq. meters was taken in August, 2001. In fact, the plaintiff with dishonest intention had got the rent of the building reassessed at Rs. 3015/- w.e.f. March, 1997 to February, 2002 by including even that area which was taken in possession by the defendant in August, 2001. The alleged assessment was got done by the plaintiff on the back of defendants by misrepresentation and in connivance with the P.W.D. department, which is not binding upon the defendants. As per the defendants, the plaintiff ha sno cause of action. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the rent was to be increased as per assessment made by HPPWD after every five years? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants are in arrears of rent, if so, to what amount?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum? OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, modified the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, modified the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment, and, decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 6.11.2009, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in absence of any agreement/rent deed, learned lower appellate Court has committed error in law in relying the assessment made by Public Works Department authorities in determining the monthly rent of the premises that too retrospectively? 2. Whether the learned lower appellate Court has misread and misinterpreted the material evidence on record? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The learned trial Judge, has, upon, Civil Suit No. 262/1 of 2002, rendered a decree against the defendants, whereunder, they are held to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. March, 1997 to 31.07.2001 @ Rs. 91/- per month, i.e. Rs. 4,823/-, and, further the defendants were held to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2001 to February 2002 @ Rs. 2103/- per month, i.e. Rs. 14,721/-, and, interest @6% per annum, was mandated to accrue thereon, and, was ordered to arise from the date of the suit, till, realization thereof. 9. The aforesaid verdict was not assailed by the defendants, rather was assailed by the plaintiff, (i) on the ground that in the decree rendered by the learned trial Court, the latter proceeding to untenably reduce the apposite enhancement/accretions, vis-a-vis, the contractual rent, from 300 per centum, enhancements whereof may be accurable, upon, the contractual rate of rent, after elapse, of, every five years, (ii) on the ground, given even, if, the aforesaid enhancements/accretions,remaining not specifically recited, in the relevant documents, yet, the apt non reciting rather standing subsumed, by marked apt acquiescence, of, the defendants, and, no evidence contrary thereto hence standing adduced, (iii) whereas, the aforesaid prime factum hence standing not appraised by the learned trial Court. 10. 10. The learned first Appellate Court, in the impugned verdict, decreed, in entirety the plaintiff''s suit w.e.f. March 1997 to February, 2002, and, declared the plaintiff, to, stand entitled, to enhanced rent computed at Rs. 1,16,019/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Even though, the learned first appellate Court has not apparently erred in concluding (i) while rejecting, the defendant''s espousal qua the plaintiff''s purported claim, along with apt accretions/enhancements thereon, rather appertaining, to, the newly added accommodation, vis-a-vis, the hitherto demised premises, and, addition whereof occurred in the year 2001, especially, when as aptly concluded, there existing no befitting apt documentary evidence, for, meteing succor thereto. 11. Be that as it may, the learned first Appellate Court, has apparently, faltered and has committed, a, grave fallacy (a) in concluding, of, the plaintiff being entitled to even exorbitant increases, and, enhancements, vis-a-vis, the contractual rate of rent, (b) given there occurring no recital contrary therewith in the apt contract of tenancy, executed inter se the plaintiff and defendants. The reason for making the aforesaid conclusion is sparked by the factum (a) even if the demised premises are assumingly, not proven to stand located in an area, whereto the provisions, of, the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, are applicable, yet the prescription(s), ordained therein qua the landlord being entitled, to increases/enhancements, vis-a-vis, the contractual rent, in a per centum, restricted upto 10%, and, the apt enhancements, hence, occurring after every three years; (b) nonetheless, the aforesaid statutory prescriptions, held in the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, when are reasonable, hence, are enjoined to be meted appropriate apt solemnity, rather than the learned First Appellate Court, untenably, proceeding to discard, the, statutory efficacy thereof, (c) merely on the anvil, of, no apt forbidding recitals, rather existing in the apt contracts, against, the levying, of, 300 per centum enhancements/increases, vis-a-vis, the contractual rent, upon, the demised premises, and, vis-a-vis, the defendants. Moreso, when, upon, accepting the aforesaid reasoning, would beget, infraction, of, the mandate, of, the prescriptions, borne in the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, (d) especially when thereupon, the, solemn elements of good conscience, and, reasonableness, as stand embodied therein, would suffer negation, (e) rather hence with there being no estoppel against statute(s), whereas, this Court would in validating exorbitant increases, working against statute(s) render hence inapt increases applicable, vis-a-vis, even the demised premises, nor hence, the factum, of, defendants without demur, earlier making attornments, of, unconscionable, and, exorbitant increases, would render themselves, to, hence make legally binding acquiescences, vis-a-vis, the attorning, of, exorbitant enhancements/increases, in, the contractual rent. 12. The above discussion, unfolds, the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 13. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed. In sequel, the judgement and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 1-NL/13 of 2008 is set aside, whereas, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court, upon, Civil Suit No. 262/1 of 2002 is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.