Appeals in rent recovery suits were disposed of as infructuous after the appellant tenant paid a lump sum settlement to satisfy the decreed amounts and interest.
Both appeals disposed of as infructuous due to satisfaction of decrees by payment of principal, interest, and electricity charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA 3213/2011(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3213/2011(O&M) Date of decision:04/10/2013
Mahesh Mehra
.............Appellant.
v.
Satish Kumar Dhawan and another
.............Respondents
And
(2) RSA No.3214/2011(O&M) Date of decision:04/10/2013
Mahesh Mehra
.............Appellant.
v.
Satish Kumar Dhawan and another
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Amardeep Singh Gill,Advocate for the appellant/JD Mr.Amit Dhawan,Advocate for the respondent/DH
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
CM No.10234-C/2013 is allowed and documents
Annexures P1 to P3 are taken on record.
Since the main appeals are fixed for 21.10.2013,Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.10.04 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2
RSA 3213/2011(O&M)
applications under Section 151 have been filed in both the aforesaid appeals for preponing the date of hearing in view of warrant of attachment having been issued.
Notice of the application.
Learned counsel for the respondent/DH accepts notice and states that he has no objection, if the applications are allowed and date of hearing in both the appeals is preponed.
In view of the agreed stand, CMs for preponement filed in both the aforesaid appeals are allowed and on the oral request of the counsel for the parties the appeals are taken up for hearing today itself.
Main Cases.
This order shall dispose of RSA No.3213/2011 and 3214/2011 since they relate to recovery of rents for the same demised premises but for different periods between identical parties i.e. the appellant/tenant-JD Mahesh Mehra and respondent/landlord-DH Satish Kumar and another.
In RSA No.3213/2011 a suit for recovery was filed by the landlord for the rent due for the period w.e.f. 12.6.2000 to 18.3.2001 @ Rs.2650/- per month i.e. total amounting to Rs.23,850/- plus electricity charges alongwith 12% interest.
In the other RSA bearing No.3214/2011 the landlord/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery towards rent due for the period from 12.3.2001 to 5.10.2001 at the aforesaid rate i.e. total amounting to Rs.18,020/- alongwith 12% interest. Joshi Rajinder Prashad
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.10.04 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
3
RSA 3213/2011(O&M)
The suit for the period w.e.f. 12.6.2000 to 18.3.2001, instituted on 3.4.2001, was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.23,850/- alongwith electricity charges of Rs.3342/alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till actual realisation. The appeal filed by Mahesh Mehra was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2011.
In the other suit instituted on 23.10.2001, for the period from 12.3.2001 to 5.10.2001, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar vide judgement and decree dated 11.10.2010 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.18020/- alongwith Rs.510/- as electricity charges and interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till actual realisation.
The dispute raised by the defendant/tenant in both the aforesaid appeals is with regard to rate of future interest.
It is not in dispute between the parties that the principal amount decreed has since been deposited before the Executing Court by the defendant.
During the course of hearing on the previous dates it was agreed to pay a lump sum amount towards the remaining amount of interest due and towards full and final settlement of the entire dispute.
At the time of hearing today the counsel for the appellant/JD has paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousands only) towards full and final settlement of the dispute andJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.10.04 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
4
RSA 3213/2011(O&M)
satisfaction of the decrees. The said amount has been paid by way of demand draft nos.206571 and 206572 both dated 1.10.2013 amounting to Rs.22,950/- and Rs.15,206/- respectively. Besides these two demand drafts a sum of Rs.6850/- in cash has been handed over to the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff-DH.
The aforesaid two demand drafts/cash amount has been accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. He further submits that he has no objection if the aforesaid two appeals are disposed of as having become infructuous in view of the satisfaction of the decrees in the above terms.
In view of the agreed stand between the learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are disposed of in above terms as having become infructuous.
04.10.2013. joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.10.04 16:17 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
Mahesh Mehra
Satish Kumar Dhawan and another
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
