Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 103 (HP)

Sunaina Sood v. Parduman Gupta

2019-01-08

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The sole grievance of the petitioners/landlords is that the arrears of the rent and interest thereupon has not been correctly calculated by the learned Rent Controller and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority affirming the said order is bad in law. 2. However, from the records it is borne out that the interest in fact has been correctly calculated by the learned Rent Controller as is evident from paras 18 to 21 of the order passed by it on 12.07.2017 and the same is reproduced hereinbelow: "18. Thus, it has come out that the respondent has not paid the rent from 01.10.2010 onwards and has not paid enhanced rent Rs. 300/- per month from 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2010. Thus, respondent is held in arrears of rent. The tenanted premises was taken on rent from 01.04.2003 @ Rs. 3000/- per month. As per statute, the rent is to be increased after every 5 years @ 10% per annum. Thus, five years was completed on 31.03.2008. Thus rent was to be increased @ 10% per annum of Rent Rs. 3000/- per month and from 01.04.2008, the rent is Rs. 3300/- per month. Thus, the increased rent now would come to Rs. 3300/- per month. As per PW-1, the respondent has not paid this enhanced rent of Rs. 300/- per month from 01.04.2008 upto 30.09.2010 i.e. for 30 months, which comes to Rs. 300 x 30 = Rs. 9000/-. 19. Thus, arrears of rent from October, 2010 to February, 2012 (i.e. 17 months x Rs. 3300/- rent) comes to Rs. 56,100/-. Earlier, before amendment in Section 5 of the Act, the rent was to be increased after every five years @ 10% of agreed rent. Thereafter, an amendment was brought in Section 5 of the Act and it is provided to increase the rent at @ 10% after every three years. Such amendment came into force on 28.02.2012. Therefore, arrears of rent from October, 2010 is calculated upto February, 2012 for seventeen months which comes to Rs. 56,100/-. 20. Thus, from March, 2012 upto March, 2015 the rent after increase of 10% would come to Rs. 3630/- per month and total rent for this period i.e. for 36 months (i.e. 36 months x rent Rs. 3630/-) would comes to Rs. 1,30,680/-. Thus, after March, 2015, the rent is to be increased upto 10% of Rs. 56,100/-. 20. Thus, from March, 2012 upto March, 2015 the rent after increase of 10% would come to Rs. 3630/- per month and total rent for this period i.e. for 36 months (i.e. 36 months x rent Rs. 3630/-) would comes to Rs. 1,30,680/-. Thus, after March, 2015, the rent is to be increased upto 10% of Rs. 3630/- which comes to Rs. 3993/- per month. Thus, arrears of rent from April, 2015 upto July, 2017 for 28 months (months 28 x rent Rs. 3993/-) comes to Rs. 1,11,804/-. Thus, total arrears of rent comes to Rs. 2,98,580/-. Thus, total arrears of rent comes to Rs. 2,98,580/-. 21. Thus, rate of interest @ 12% per annum from October, 2010 to February, 2012 comes to Rs. 5049/-. The interest from March, 2012 upto March, 2015 comes to Rs. 24175/-. The interest from April 2015 to July, 2017 comes to Rs. 16211.58/-. Thus, total interest comes to Rs. 45435/-. Thus, total amount due including interest and enhanced rent from 1.4.2008 to 30.09.2010 comes to Rs. 3,44,015.58/- + Rs. 9000/- = Rs. 3,53,015.58, which is payable by respondent as arrears of rent to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioners are held entitled for the aforesaid arrears of rent alongwith statutory increase as calculated above and respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and answered in affirmative." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords would further contend that they i.e. landlords have not been awarded interest for the entire period from 2008 to 2017 on the amount due. However, as per the order extracted above, it is evidently clear that the learned Rent Controller while calculating the amount has split up the arrears for different period, but at the same time, has awarded interest in terms of the statute for the aforesaid period and it is only thereafter that he has calculated and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,53,015.58 paise towards arrears of rent. 4. In case the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are accepted that would amount to undue enrichment of the landlords which is prohibited in law and is not otherwise the intention of the statute as the landlords can only be held entitled to what is prescribed under the statute and nothing beyond that. 5. 4. In case the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are accepted that would amount to undue enrichment of the landlords which is prohibited in law and is not otherwise the intention of the statute as the landlords can only be held entitled to what is prescribed under the statute and nothing beyond that. 5. Admittedly, the amount so awarded by the learned Rent Controller was deposited by the respondent within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of passing of the eviction order and therefore the landlords cannot claim any interest beyond this period. 6. Consequently, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s) if any, is also disposed of.