Dismissed

M/S A.G. Food Limited v. Punjab State Federation of Coop. Housing Building Society Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2014RSA/134/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal, the High Court dismissed the defendant-appellant's challenge against lower courts' decrees in a landlord-tenant dispute. The court upheld findings that the tenant leased premises and failed to pay enhancement rent, rejecting claims of perversity.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the judgments and decrees of the Courts below; no substantial question of law arose.

M/S A.G. Food Limited Vs Punjab… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.134 of 2014 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.134 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2014

¶5

M/s A.G.Foods Limited

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J .

¶13

C.M.No.303-C of 2014

¶14

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

C.M.No.304-C of 2014

¶16

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 35 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶17

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶18

RSA No.134 of 2014 (O&M)

¶19

Defendant-appellant is in regular second appeal against the judgments of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-

¶20

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

RSA No.134 of 2014 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

respondent was partly decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010 and appeal preferred by the defendantappellant against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2013.

¶24

Succinctly, the facts as emanated from the judgment of the trial Court are that plaintiff-respondent claimed rent/damages at the rate of 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.1998 and 60,000/w.e.f. 1.11.2000, electricity charges w.e.f. 01.09.1998 along with interest @ 18% per annum and water bill w.e.f. 01.08.1998 to 31.07.2001. In all plaintiff/respondent claimed a sum of ` 22,21,743/-.

¶25

The claim of the plaintiff-respondent was that he is owner of SCO No.150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh and w.e.f. 01.11.1995 total carpet area of 1398 square feet was rented out to the defendant/appellant for a period of three years i.e. upto 31.10.1998. The defendant was required to pay enhanced rate of 5% every year for the lease period. In case of default, the defendant was liable to pay the outstanding rent along with interest @ 18% per annum. Since the defendant did not pay 5% increase in the rent as had been agreed in the lease agreement apart from electricity, water charges etc., necessity arose to file the suit for damages. From the judgment of the trial Court, it is also emanated that plaintiffrespondent also filed ejectment suit against the defendant-appellant.

¶26

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶27

RSA No.134 of 2014 (O&M)

¶28

¶29

Upon notice, defendant-appellant appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement, defendant admitted the factum of having taken the premises on rent but denied that there was any enhancement clause. It was also denied that defendant was liable to pay outstanding amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Defendant had already been vacated premises w.e.f. February, 1999 and therefore, there was no liability to make payment of rent.

¶30

The trial Court after examining the evidence led by both the parties, oral and documentary found that defendant was bound to vacate the premises on expiry of lease deed on 11.10.1998 but having failed to do so and vacated the premises only on 17.02.1999. It has fairly been stated by the plaintiff that defendant paid the rent for the month of November, 1998, December, 1998 and January, 1999 but at old rate. Plaintiff claimed damages for the above said period on the prevailing market rent i.e.50,000/- per month with 5% increase every year but since plaintiff failed to prove the same, thus the suit was partly decreed by permitting the plaintiff to recover the damages as per agreed rate of rent with 5% increase. The plaintiff was also held entitled to interest @ 12% till the passing of the judgment and decree with future interest @ 6% per annum till actual realization.

¶31

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶32

RSA No.134 of 2014 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

Lower Appellate Court in appeal filed by the defendantappellant affirmed the findings of the trial Court.

¶35

Counsel for the appellant assailed the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the premise that both the Courts below committed perversity while decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal, as respondent-plaintiff did not lead any documentary or oral evidence to establish that he is not entitled to the damages and the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from any illegality and non application of judicial mind.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the lower Appellate Court being the last Court of fact and law did not examine the facts and also failed to discharge the obligation as enshrined under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶37

Counsel for the appellant further argued that the present appeal involves substantial questions of law to be answered by this Court.

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and do not agree with the aforesaid submission. I am in agreement with the findings of the trial Court, for, the trial Court in a very fair, just and prudent manner partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff by not accepting the damages as claimed by the plaintiff and only granted relief as per terms and conditions of lease agreement that too with 5% increase of rent along with interest. Lower Appellate Court while

¶39

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶40

RSA No.134 of 2014 (O&M)

¶41

¶42

upholding the findings of the trial Court examined this aspect of the matter and did not find weight on substance in the argument raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant.

¶43

Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are upheld as no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶44

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶45

November 25, 2014 savita

¶46

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

M/S A.G. Food Limited v. Punjab State Federation of Coop. Housing Building Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S A.G. Food Limited v. Punjab State Federation of Coop. Housing Building Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Kumar Vs Mukand Lal National College & Anr.

Dalbir Singh Vs Dhbvnl &Ors

Hoshiyari Devi & Anr. Vs Satyawan & Ors.

Kanwar Varinder Singh Sandhar Vs Veera Wali

Meenu Vs Raj Pal & Anr.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh