R.S.A. No. 1430 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1430 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.4.2009 Arvind Thakur ...Appellant. Versus K.D. Sharma and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2009 passed by the first appellate court confirming that of the trial court dated 28.11.2008 vide which the suit of the plaintiff-landlord for possession of the suit property was decreed and the defendant was ordered to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from basement of SCO No.6-P, Sector-10, Panchkula (excluding portion measuring 12' x 32'9” of said basement)(hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) and also for recovery of Rs.2,55,467/- as arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. It was pleaded that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property at the monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- w.e.f. 1.7.2001 vide rent deed dated 15.6.2001 with the condition that the rebate of Rs.1000/- would be given for a period of one year. R.S.A. No. 1430 of 2009 -2- Subsequently, in continuation of the said rent deed, rest of the basement (excluding portion measuring 12' x 23'9” of basement which earlier was on rent with Parkash Singh son of Sada Nand) was also rented out to him. As per the terms and conditions laid in the rent deed dated 15.6.2001 and the subsequent agreement, the monthly rent payable by the defendant (exclusive of water and electricity bills) was as under:- (i) from Ist April, 2002 to 30th June, 2002, Rs.10,000/- per month; (ii) from Ist July, 2002 to 30th June, 2003, Rs.11,000/- per month; (iii) from Ist July 2003 to 30th June, 2004, Rs.12,000/- per month and so on in an increase of Rs.1000/- per year till it touches Rs.15,000/- per month and thereafter there will be no increase except as given in clause 4 of the rent deed. It was further pleaded that the rent payable by the defendant lastly was Rs.13,000/- per month in respect of the suit property and he was in arrears of rent from 9/2004 to 6/2005 at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per month except Rs.500/- which were paid in 9/2004. In this way, a sum of Rs.1,29,500/- was due to the plaintiffs from the defendant on account of arrears of rent for the said period. According to the plaintiffs, defendant had made short payments towards monthly rent from 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2004 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and an amount of Rs.12,000/- was also due against him on that account. For the period from 1.7.2004 to 31.8.2004, short payments towards R.S.A. No. 1430 of 2009 -3- monthly rent were made at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and a sum of Rs.4000/- were due to the plaintiffs from the defendant. Since the defendant was not proved to be a good tenant, therefore, his tenancy from the suit property was terminated by the plaintiffs by serving a legal notice dated 23.6.2005 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was next pleaded that the defendant neither vacated the suit property nor made the payment of the arrears of rent and even the legal notice also failed to evoke any positive response. In this way, the defendant was also liable to pay future damages/ compensation/mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property from the date of institution of the suit till its vacation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. Defence of the defendant was struck off by the trial court as he failed to make the payment of the rent assessed by the trial court along with interest and cost in spite of having availed opportunities for the same. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding them entitled to the possession of the suit property by way of ejectment of the defendant. Further, the plaintiffs were held entitled to recover the arrears of rent as per schedule given in the rent notes, Ex.P5, and Ex.P6, except the payment received by them vide document, Ex.D2. The trial court directed the defendant to make the payment of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from 8.7.2005 till the vacation of the suit property. Thereafter, the matter was taken in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree R.S.A. No. 1430 of 2009 -4- dated 27.1.2009 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Hence, this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his able assistance. The courts below had recorded a finding of fact that the notice, Ex.P7, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy was served upon the defendant in accordance with law. Further, it was concurrently held by the courts below that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the arrears of rent as per the rent notes, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, after deducting the payment received by them vide document, Ex.D2. The trial court on the basis of the evidence available on record held the plaintiffs entitled to get mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from 8.7.2005 till the vacation of the suit property as he was in unauthorized possession of the suit property after 8.7.2005. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below except that the learned counsel made valiant efforts to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion than that of the courts below, but that is also not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in the appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. April 27, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE