In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.563 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:29.2.2008 State of Haryana and others .....Appellants v. Jiwan Lal Bhasin and others .....Caveators-Respondents .... Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for caveators-respondents. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The State of Haryana, defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby the appeal of the State against the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh has been dismissed. Smt. Parkash Bhasin the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs-respondents was owner of Kothi No.512, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh. The said house was let out by her at a monthly rent of Rs.3,200/- excluding water and electricity charges in October 1982. The defendant increased the rent to Rs.6,000/- per month in November 1988. Thereafter, the rent was increased to Rs.8,000/- per month in November 1992. Lastly, the rent was increased to Rs.16,000/- per month in November R.S.A. No.563 of 2008 [2] 1999. The last increase of Rs.16,000/- per month from November 1999 is seriously disputed by the defendants-appellants. Smt. Parkash Bhasin died on 14.4.2000 and after her demise the house was succeeded to by the plaintiffs being the husband, daughter and son respectively of the deceased. The suit was filed on 29.5.2004 for possession and recovery of rent amounting to Rs.2,72,000/-. The claim for possession was given-up during the pendency of the suit as the notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration exempting buildings from the operation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (as applicable to Chandigarh) was set aside by the Supreme Court. The dispute continued only qua the recovery of rent that had been claimed. It is the stand of the defendants that the rate of rent in respect of the demised premises continues to be Rs.8,000/- per month and there was no increase of the rent to Rs.16,000/- per month in November 1999. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that from November 1999 the rate of rent was Rs.16,000/- per month. The suit of the plaintiffs has accordingly been decreed in their favour. Mr. Madan Gupta, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has contended that there has been a misreading of evidence by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that benefit of clerical mistakes is being taken by the plaintiffs-respondents. He has referred to memo No.1058 dated 26.6.2000 (Ex.D.4) addressed by Sub Divisional Engineer, Provincial Division No.6 to Sh. Jiwan Lal Bhasin (plaintiff No.1) wherein the details of the payments that are stated to have been made are mentioned. On the strength of the same, it is submitted that the payments were made in the following manner:- R.S.A. No.563 of 2008 [3] “Sr. No. Bank Draft No./Dt. Amount Month 1. 170650 18.6.99 8000/- 5/99 2. 174925 18.9.99 8000/- 6/99 3. 176469 9.10.99 8000/- 7/99 4. 178353 11.11.99 8000/- 8/99 5. 294840 8.12.99 16000/- 9/99 & 10/99 6. 295760 11.1.2000 16000/- 11/99 & 112/99 7. 803677 16.2.2000 16000/- 1/2k & 2/2k 8. 805124 14.3.2000 16000/- 3/2k & 4/2k” He has also referred to the cross-examination of Shri Pahalwan Ram Kamboj, Sub Divisional Engineer, Provincial Sub Division No.6, PWD (B&R), Sector 33, Chandigarh (DW-1) wherein he has inter alia stated that it is correct that the rent after January 2000 has been paid @ Rs.8,000/- and then volunteered that even earlier the rent has been paid at that rate. On the strength of the same, it is contended that the suggestion put to Pahalwan Ram Kamboj (DW-1) is that the rent after January 2000 was Rs.8,000/- per month and earlier also it was Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, there was no increase in the amount of rent. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the caveators has submitted that recording of the suggestion is only a slip and in fact the suggestion was that it is incorrect that after January 2000 the rent has been paid at Rs.8,000/-. He has referred to memo No.108 dated 18.1.2000 (Ex.PW.1/A), memo No.266 dated 7.3.2000 (Ex.PW.1/B) and memo No.414 dated 24.3.2000 (Ex.PW.1/C) wherein in terms of specific draft numbers and dates, rent for the demised premises has been paid for the months of November 1999, December 1999 and January 2000 respectively R.S.A. No.563 of 2008 [4] at the rate of Rs.16,000/- for each of the said months. It is, therefore, submitted that after November 1999 the rate of rent has been Rs.16,000/- per month which is evident from the aforesaid documents Ex.PW.1/A, Ex.PW.1/B and Ex.PW.1/C. The findings, therefore, recorded by the Courts below, it is submitted, are pure findings of facts. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgments of the Courts below. It may be noticed that the claim of the plaintiffs- respondents is that rent for the months of November 1999 to January 2000 has been paid @ Rs.16,000/- per month. Thereafter, the defendants- appellants paid no rent to the deceased Smt. Parkash Bhasin till her demise. Besides, from February 2000 to 31.7.2003 the total amount of rent at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month works out to Rs.6,72,000/- whereas the defendants paid only Rs.4 Lacs till date of filing the suit. Therefore, the defendants were liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,72,000/- on account of arrears of rent. In this manner, the claim of the plaintiffs- respondents is that from November 1999 onwards the rate of rent in respect of the demised premises was Rs.16,000/- per month which has been paid for the months of November 1999 to January 2000 and thereafter from February 2000 till 31.7.2003 it has been paid @ Rs.8,000/- per month whereas it is liable to be paid at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month. The learned trial Court relied on the documents Exs.PW.1/A, PW.1/B and PW.1/C which clearly show that rent has been paid @ Rs.16,000/- vide bank drafts for the months of November 1999, December 1999 and January 2000. Besides, it was noticed that there had been periodic R.S.A. No.563 of 2008 [5] increase in the rate of rent which was initially Rs.3,200/- per month. This was increased to Rs.6,000/- per month in November 1988 and then to Rs.8,000/- in November 1992. Lastly, it was increased to Rs.16,000/- per month from November 1999. These have been upheld by the learned lower appellate Court. The findings and conclusions concurrently reached at by the learned Courts below are pure findings of facts based on material and evidence on record. The questions of law as formulated by the appellants in terms of Section 100 (3) CPC in para 6 of the memo of appeal are not questions of law leave alone substantial questions of law. These in fact are matters in issues between the parties. Perusal of memo No.1058 dated 26.6.2000 (Ex.D.4) referred to by the learned State counsel shows that it has been issued later in point of time to the rent paid at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month for the months of November 1999 to January 2000. The amounts of Rs.16,000/- paid on 8.12.1999, 11.1.2000, 16.2.2000 and 14.3.2000 in terms of Ex.D.4 are shown to be rent for two months each relating to the period of September/October 1999, November/December 1999, January/February 2000 and March/April 2000. However, this is absolutely contrary to the memos Ex. PW.1/A, Ex.PW.1/B and Ex.PW.1/C wherein the rents have been paid @ Rs.16,000/- for the months of November 1999 to January 2000. Thereafter, no rent has been paid by the appellants to the deceased Smt. Parkash Bhasin till her demise. The reference to the cross-examination of Shri Pahalwan Ram Kamboj, Sub Divisional Engineer (DW-1) wherein he has stated that it is correct that the rent after January 2000 has been paid @ Rs.8,000/- is also inconsequential. In fact, it is the less amount of rent R.S.A. No.563 of 2008 [6] that was payable and has not been paid which is claimed in the present suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. Even otherwise the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants as raised are based on facts and the conclusions reached at by the Courts below, which are not shown to be in any manner perverse or unreasonable so as to warrant interference in regular second appeal. In the circumstances, no ground for interference with the impugned judgment and decree is made out in regular second appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. February 29, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No