Partly allowed

Food Corporation of India v. Firm Mahila Gramin Bhandaran

Rajasthan HC27 Sept 2023CFA/167/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for recovery, the First Appellate Court upheld liability for agreed rent during continued possession post-agreement expiry but modified the decree to deduct advances deposited but not adjusted at trial court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned decree modified: Plaintiff firm entitled to receive Rs.26,79,694/- after reduction of unadjusted deposits; interest provision affirmed.

Food Corporation of India Vs Firm Mahila Gramin… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:31808]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 167/2023

¶4

Food Corporation Of India, Through General Manager, 1620 Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.

¶5

Regional Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Vinoba Basi, Sri Ganganagar.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Firm Mahila Gramin Bhandaran, Chak 15 M L, Abohar Hanumangar, By Pass, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar, Through Bhagidar Neelam Mittal W/o Shri Bajrang Lal By Caste Agarwal, Resident Of Nagori Colony, Sri Ganganagar.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Nitin Trivedi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. G.R. Goyal

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

27/09/2023

¶14

The present first appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.41/2018 (CIS No.87/2018) whereby the suit for recovery as preferred by the plaintiff firm has been decreed for an amount of Rs.36,61,416/- with interest @6% per annum.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that so far as the finding on issue No.1 is concerned, the Court below erred in passing a decree for Rs.36,61,416/- as the Court held the plaintiff entitled for guaranteed rent for the period from 01.11.2015 to 20.06.2016 whereas for the said period, although the amount qua guaranteed rent was not paid by the Department, the same was

[2023:RJ-JD:31808]

[CFA-167/2023]

(2 of 5)

definitely paid as per Actual Utilisation Basis (AUB). An amount of Rs.9,81,722/- was paid during the said period to the plaintiff firm and hence the said amount ought to have been deducted while calculating the due amount of rent. Learned counsel further submitted that the documents reflecting the said deposit have been placed on record along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC in the present appeal which requires consideration by this Court.

¶20

The second ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that as the written agreement in question was entered for the period till October 2015 only, the defendant Department was liable to pay the guaranteed rent only till that date. Subsequent to that date, there being no written agreement in existence, the liability to pay the guaranteed rent could not be fastened upon the defendant Department.

¶21

Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below erred in relying upon the internal communication of the Department whereby an opinion to extend the agreement in question on the guaranteed rent was given by one of the officials. The same was an internal communication of the Department that too, in the form of an opinion only and could not have bound the Department as the ultimate decision by the higher officials was to continue the tenancy only on AUB. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the finding on issue No.1 deserves interference by this Court.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if it is assumed that the tenancy in pursuance to the written agreement terminated/came to an end on 18.01.2015, the

[2023:RJ-JD:31808]

[CFA-167/2023]

(3 of 5)

rented premise was used by the defendant Department till June 2016 and the vacant possession of the same was handed over to the respondent only on 20.06.2016 and therefore, the defendant was very much liable to pay the rent qua the user period as agreed at the time of commencement of the tenancy.

¶27

So far as the deposit of amount of Rs.9,81,722/- during the interregnum period is concerned, learned counsel has not disputed the said fact and submitted that an application for deduction of the said amount has already been moved by the plaintiff firm before the executing Court. Learned counsel submitted that the decree in question be modified to that extent.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is admitted on record that the tenancy in question was entered into vide written agreement dated 18.01.2013. The tenancy was for a period of one year which was extendable and hence extended for a further period of one year in writing. It is also an admitted fact that the agreed guaranteed rent for the premise in question was Rs.4,77,576/- per month and also that even after the expiry of period of two years on 18.01.2015, the defendant Department continued to use the premise in question and handed over the vacant possession of the same only on 20.06.2016.

¶29

So far as the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that qua the period post 18.01.2015, the defendant was liable to pay the rent on Actual Utilisation Basis only is concerned, the same does not warrant any consideration by this Court as the finding on the said issue by the Court below is totally

[2023:RJ-JD:31808]

[CFA-167/2023]

(4 of 5)

in consonance with law. This Court is of the clear opinion that no landlord or owner of the property can be forced to enter into an agreement contrary to his choice. Admittedly, the tenancy commenced in pursuance of a written agreement specifying the rent payable monthly. The agreement did not specify/comprise of any clause qua the rent payable after the completion of the stipulated period of tenancy. In absence of any clause/condition in the agreement, any change/determination in/of payable rent unilaterally, by the department, could not have bound the landlord plaintiff, moreso when the request of the department to extend the agreement on AUB was clearly refused by the plaintiff firm. The continuance of possession and user of the premise by the defendant despite refusal of extension of agreement, clearly amounted to an acquiescence for the agreed rent.

¶34

Had the Department not intended to continue the tenancy on agreed rent, it was open for it to handover the vacant possession of the premise in question soon after the expiry of the stipulated period on 18.01.2015. Admittedly, the possession was not handed over and the premise was used till 20.06.2016. The Department was therefore, definitely under an obligation to pay the rent at the agreed rate for the said period and hence, finding of the Court below on issue No.1 to that extent cannot be interfered with.

¶35

However, as admitted, the fact of deposit of Rs.9,81,722/- by the Department was not brought into the knowledge of the Court below and therefore, the said amount has not been adjusted towards the decreetal amount. In view of the same, the impugned decree, to that extent, deserves to be modified.

¶36

[2023:RJ-JD:31808]

¶37

[CFA-167/2023]

¶38

The documents reflecting the deposit of the said amount submitted along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC are taken on record.

¶39

Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed . The impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent that the plaintiff firm is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.26,79,694/- from the defendant/respondent department. The decree qua the interest stands affirmed.

¶40

Let the decree be drawn accordingly.

¶41

The stay petition and the pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.

¶42

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶43

185-Vij/-

Food Corporation of India v. Firm Mahila Gramin Bhandaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Food Corporation of India v. Firm Mahila Gramin Bhandaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pokar Ram Vs Bhanwar Singh

Raju Ram Vs Hukma Ram

Vinod Kumar Vs Maniram

Babulal Vs Bhanwar Lal

Lrs of Chandmal Vs Tara Devi

State of Rajasthan Vs Balwant Singh