JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2018, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, (Camp at Rampur Bushehar), H.P., passed in Civil Suit No.RBT 12-1 of 2015/14, titled Shri Prem Sukh, through L.Rs. Yash Pal Singh & others Versus Shri Duni Chand, as also the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019, passed by the Court of learned District Judge Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2019, titled Duni Chand Versus Prem Sukh through L.Rs. Yash Pal Singh & others, in terms whereof suit for recovery filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed by the learned Trial Court for an amount of Rs.1,85,627/- and the appeal preferred against the same was dismissed by learned Appellate Court. 2. Brief facts necessarily for the adjudication of the present appeal are that a suit was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant, against the appellant/ defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was owner-in-possession of House No.67, situated in Ward No.-5, Middle Bazar, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P., upon which there existed three shops. The plaintiff had let out one shop to the defendant in the month of January, 2007 on a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-. A petition was filed under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the defendant by the plaintiff on 04.10.2010. The same was preferred before learned Rent Controller, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. The Rent Petition was allowed by learned Rent Controller and the tenant was ordered to pay a rent of Rs.1,39,000/- ( i.e. rent for thirty one months @ Rs.4,500/- per month) alongwith interest at the rate of interest at 6% per annum . The tenant was order to pay 10% of the enhanced rent after five years, i.e. an amount of Rs.4,950/- after 01.04.2012, which came to Rs.64,350/- upto the month of April, 2013 alongwith interest for thirty one months. In all, the liability of the tenant was calculated at Rs.2,17,262/- and he was also directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/-. The tenant was further directed to vacate the shop and deposit the interest and cost within a period of thirty days of the order. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal. The tenant was further directed to vacate the shop and deposit the interest and cost within a period of thirty days of the order. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was compromised between the parties before the National Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. In terms of this compromise the tenant was to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff on or before 01.12.2013 and the matter of recovery of arrears of rent interest and cost was kept open. 4. For the recovery of said rent interest and cost, a suit was filed by the landlord/plaintiff, i.e. the suit for recovery of Rs.2,70,000/- with future interest @ 12% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The suit was contested by the tenant/defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was neither maintainable and more over it was hit by the provisions of Indian Contract Act and the same is also barred by limitation. It was further the case of the defendant that he had taken a single room on rent from the plaintiff and the same remained in his possession till August, 2008 and thereafter, the plaintiff did not allow the defendant to run business as he wanted to enhance the rent and also demanded advance money. Further, according to the defendant on his refusal to do so, the plaintiff put a lock on the suit premises. The rate of rent having been fixed @ Rs.4,500/- per month was also denied and it was also asserted that plaintiff had betrayed the defendant and on false assurances succeeded in taking possession of the suit premises. According to the defendant, he was not liable to pay any amount as was being demanded by way of the suit. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues :- “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover amount of Rs.2,70,000/- as arrear of rent, alongwith interest and cost, as prayed?…. O.P.P. 2) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? …. O.P.P. 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? …. O.P.D. 4) Whether suit is time barred, as alleged? …. O.P.P. 2) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? …. O.P.P. 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? …. O.P.D. 4) Whether suit is time barred, as alleged? …. O.P.D. 5) Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? …. O.P.D. 6) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? …. O.P.D. 7) Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? …. O.P.D. 8) Whether plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed material facts and suit also lacks basic and material facts, as alleged? …. O.P.D. 9. Relief”. 6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- “ISSUE NO.1 Partly Yes. ISSUE NO.2 Yes. ISSUE NO.3 No. ISSUE NO.4 No. ISSUE NO.5 No. ISSUE NO.6 No. ISSUE NO.7 No. ISSUE NO.8 No. Relief Per operative portion of this judgment, the suit filed by the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.” 7. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,85,627/-. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed and the defendant has now preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law and both the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that the plaintiff had failed to bring any evidence on record to substantiate his contention with regard to the alleged recovery of rent from the appellant. Learned counsel has further argued that reliance placed upon the adjudication made by learned Rent Controller by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as said Court erred in not appreciating that in the Civil Suit, the plaintiff was liable to establish the plea afresh by leading cogent evidence. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that as there are serious substantial questions of law involved in the appeal, the same be admitted. 10. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that as there are serious substantial questions of law involved in the appeal, the same be admitted. 10. The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that there is no perversity in the findings which have been returned by the learned Courts below, as the decree for recovery has been passed by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by learned Appellate Court on the basis of evidence which was led by the plaintiff. Learned counsel has also argued that in fact there was admission on the part of the defendant with regard to the rate of rent etc. and in this view of the matter, as the adjudication by learned Courts below is on facts only, therefore, as there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal the same be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 12. The facts which led to the filing of the suit have also been narrated by me hereinabove. The stand which was taken by the defendant before the learned Trial Court has also been referred to in the above part of the judgment. The issues which were framed by the learned Trial Court have also been mentioned hereinabove. 13. While deciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, learned Trial Court held that the suit was an independent suit and not an execution petition of the order of learned Rent Controller and therefore, the plaintiff was required to prove his case independently. Learned Trial Court also held that in a suit for recovery only for an amount to the extent of three years from the date of filing of the suit could be recovered. It further held that in the suit it was an admitted fact between the parties that the defendant vacated the disputed shop on 30.11.2013, whereas the suit was filed on 15.01.2014. Learned Court further held that plaintiff could claim arrears of rent from the defendant for a period of three years, i.e. w.e.f. 16.01.2011 to 30.11.2013, i.e. for a period of thirty four months and fifteen days. Learned Court further held that plaintiff could claim arrears of rent from the defendant for a period of three years, i.e. w.e.f. 16.01.2011 to 30.11.2013, i.e. for a period of thirty four months and fifteen days. Learned Court thereafter held that as it was not much in dispute that the rent on which the premises was let out by the landlord to the tenant was Rs.4,500/- per month, therefore, the rent for the period of thirty four months and fifteen days came to Rs.1,65,250/-. Learned Trial Court also held that plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest for the period w.e.f. 16.01.2011 to 30.11.2013 @ 9% per annum which was statutory interest and it comes to Rs.20,376.56 paise. Learned Court thus held that the plaintiffs were entitled for recovery of Rs.1,85,626.56, that is to say Rs.1,85,626.56 paise. 14. Learned Appellate Court has affirmed the findings which have returned by learned Trial Court. While affirming the findings, learned Appellate Court held that DW-3 Sohan Lal had brought the record of Municipal Committee, in which the rent was fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month of other shopkeepers and he also stated that defendant had started the photography shop in the name of Raj Studio. Learned Appellate Court also observed that while discarding the oral evidence, learned Rent Controller had held in his judgment that the rent of the shop was Rs.4,500/- per month and defendant himself had admitted that he was paying Rs.4,500/- per month. Learned Appellate Court thus held that fact admitted need not be proved. It further held that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the defendant that recovery suit was not within the period of limitation was without merit and similarly, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no cause was also incorrect. Learned Court held that as the appellant himself had failed to discharge his liability and to vacate the possession and he preferred the appeal which was compromised, in which it was clearly mentioned that the plaintiff was at liberty to recover the arrears of rent by way of separate proceedings, therefore, it could not be said that either the landlord was not having the locus standi to file and maintain the suit or the same was time barred. 15. 15. Having carefully gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, this Court is of the considered view that adjudication of issue No.1, in terms whereof, the suit for recovery has been decreed by the learned Trial Court is on pure facts. In fact, Para-26 of the judgment passed by learned Trial Court demonstrates that learned Court observed that when defendant appeared before the Court as DW-1, in his cross-examination, he admitted that rent of this shop was Rs.4,500/- per month and moreover, even learned Rent Controller in his decision dated 09.05.2013 (Ext.PW1/B), held that rent of the shop was Rs.4,500/- per month. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate that these were the perverse findings or not borne out from the record of the case. 16. This Court does not agrees with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by learned Rent Controller could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court while returning its findings. It is a matter of record and not disputed that the matter with regard to vacation of the demised premises was compromised by the parties in the course of appeal which was filed by the appellant against the order passed by learned Rent Controller. It is also not much in dispute that at the time when the matter was settled as compromised, liberty was granted to the plaintiff to recover the arrears of rent. 17. In this view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the plaintiff has been granted recovery of rent of only three months is a cogent and prudent judgment based upon the evidence on record and the upholding the said judgment and decreeing by learned Appellate Court can also not be faulted with. 18. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, as this Court is satisfied that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. No order as to cost. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.