R.S.A. No. 906 of 1985 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 906 of 1985 Date of Decision: 25.9.2008 Manjit Singh and another ...Appellants. Versus Government of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, AAG, Punjab. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this regular second appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 5.11.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the findings recorded by the Sub Judge Ist Class (Special), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1983, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction, were affirmed. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs were owners and landlord of kothi known as “Bhoot Bunglow” situated at Passey Road, Civil Lines, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) and on 12.7.1974 the defendants took ground floor of the said kothi on rent for the accommodation of the office of defendant No.4. The rent of the R.S.A. No. 906 of 1985 -2- building was to be fixed on the basis of the assessment by defendant No.4 by calculating the built up and non-built up areas as per their own rules and regulations. It was pleaded that defendant No.4 told that they were not governed by the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the plaintiffs agreed to the same and the defendants started paying the rent in respect thereof as per the assessment made by them. It was further pleaded that there was no provision for reassessment of the rent after every five years. The plaintiffs wrote a letter to the defendants to reassess the rent of the building and defendant No.4 considering the claim of the plaintiffs forwarded the copy of letter No. 917 dated 27.4.1981 to defendant No.5 and requested them to furnish the plan showing the built up and not built up area of the building together with the cost of the land verified by the Collector and year of construction etc. for the purpose of reassessment of rent. It was also pleaded that as per the directions of the defendants, the plaintiffs supplied the aforesaid information to them and on the basis of the said material produced by the plaintiffs, the rent was reassessed at the rate of Rs.977/- per month. Defendant No.3 agreed to pay the rent at the reassessed rate of Rs.977/- per month and recommended to respondent No.2 that reassessment of rent was permissible and that no other building for that office on rent at the rate of Rs.977/- was available. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.977/- per month w.e.f. 1.3.1981. As the defendants failed to pay the rent at the aforesaid rate, the plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants for fixing the monthly rent at Rs.977/- in respect of the tenanted premises R.S.A. No. 906 of 1985 -3- and to pay the same at that rate as per letter dated 15.7.1981. The claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants by filing a joint written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that on the application of the plaintiffs, the case for enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises was recommended but the same was rejected by the Chief Engineer as there was no rule or order of the department nor was the department bound to pay the rent or reassess the same. Besides denying the other averments made in the plaint, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction prayed for? OPP 2. Relief.” The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties decided issue No.1 against the plaintiffs holding that no mutual agreement between the parties for the re-assessment of rent after the expiry of period of five years was in existence and that the competent authority was not under the obligation to sanction rent as per the reassessed rate. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1983 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding them not entitled to the grant of mandatory injunction. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 5.11.1984 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. R.S.A. No. 906 of 1985 -4- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The solitary contention raised in the appeal is that the courts below had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs erroneously by holding that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the substantial question of law arises in terms thereof for consideration of this Court. On the other hand, learned State counsel has controverted the above said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and has supported the judgments passed by the courts below. She has further stated that the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for mandatory injunction being not maintainable. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The findings recorded by the courts below are concurrent in nature and nothing contrary has been shown that the courts below had wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants or how the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. September 25, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE