Tenant appealed against concurrent findings fixing monthly rent at ₹3500 and decreeing recovery of three years' rent arrears with 6% interest. The High Court found the findings based on proper appreciation of evidence, held no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1564-2006(O&M) Reserved on: 06.09-2024 Pronounced on: 10.09.2024
RAM RATTAN NARULA
. . . .APPELLANT
Vs.
R.K. SETHI AND OTHERS
. . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate, for the respondents.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Defendant of the suit, filed by plaintiff for recovery, is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Court below.
2.1 As borne out from the trial Court record, defendant (appellant herein) was inducted as a tenant on a portion of House No.2640, Sector 37C, Chandigarh. The plaintiffs-landlords (now respondents) of the house filed a suit for recovery for an amount of ₹1,72,300/- as arrears of rent and interest of ₹36,000/- i.e. totalling ₹2,08,300/- against the said defendant-appellant along with interest. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the rate of rent was ₹3500/per month; that defendant-appellant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.1996; that an ejectment petition was filed against the defendant, during which defendant vacated the premises on 07.02.2000. The plaintiffs claimed recovery of the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till the date of vacation i.e. 07.02.2000 from the defendant.
2.2 In the written statement, the stand of the defendant was that the rate of rent was ₹650 per month. He also claimed that he had already paid the rent. Certain preliminary objections were also raised including the limitation.
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.09.11 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:118267
RSA-374-2015
2.3 After framing necessary issues and taking evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court found that rate of rent to be ₹3500/- per month. It was further found that defendant had failed to prove the payment of any rent and as such, plaintiffs were entitled to the recovery of the arrears of rent @ ₹3500/- per month. However, it was further found that suit was filed on 19.05.2000 and therefore, the plaintiffs could claim the arrears of rent only for the period of 3 years prior to the institution of the suit. As such, plaintiffs were held entitled to the recovery of ₹1,24,483/- i.e. for the period 20.05.1997 to 07.05.2020 @ ₹3500/- per month along with interest @ 6% per annum from 10.05.1997 till realization besides the cost of the suit.
2.4 The appeal against the above judgment was filed by the defendant-appellant. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 06.03.2006 affirmed the findings of the trial Court to the effect that rate of rent was ₹3500/- per month. It further affirmed the finding to the effect that no rent was paid w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It was also affirmed that plaintiffs were entitled to the recovery of the arrears of rent for the period of three years immediately prior to the filing of the suit and so, they were entitled to recovery of the arrears of rent w.e.f. 20.05.1997 to 07.02.2020 i.e. till the date of vacation. It was found that mentioning of the date as 07.05.2000 in the relief clause by the trial Court was an inadvertent error and that in fact, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the arrears of rent w.e.f. 20.05.1997 to 07.02.2020 i.e. till the date of vacation of the house @ ₹3500/- per month along with proportionate cost and interest @ 6% per annum from the date the rent was due till its realization. With this little modification, no justification was found to interfere with the other findings returned by the trial Court and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.09.11 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 3
2024:PHHC:118267
RSA-374-2015
concrete evidence to prove the rate of rent. Ld. counsel further contends that another tenant in another portion of the house was on rent @ ₹650/- per month and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the rate of rent could be ₹3500/- per month. It is further the contention of ld. counsel that the finding of the Courts below to the effect that defendant-appellant was given a furnished accommodation and a larger portion is beyond pleadings.
10.09.2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) ����� JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.09.11 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rate of rent was ₹3500 per month as found by both courts below or ₹650 per month as contended by the defendant.
Whether concurrent findings of fact on rent arrears involved any substantial question of law warranting interference in second appeal.
Ram Rattan Narula
R.K. Sethi
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
