R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.9.2009 Haryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd. and others ......Appellants Versus M/s Jindal Rice Mills, Pehowa and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for ejectment and mesne profit. The suit for mesne profits was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Pehowa vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 10.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Facts of the case are that on 3.6.2005, the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for ejectment and mesne profits with the averments filed a suit for ejectment and mesne profits with the averments that plaintiff/respondent No.1 is the sole proprietorship concern and plaintiff/respondent No.2 is its sole proprietor. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, they are owners of a brick paved plinth measuring about two acres situated at Hospital Road, within the municipal limits of Pehowa. The said plinth was let out to defendant/appellant No.1 through its District Manager, vide lease agreement dated 1.4.2001, at a monthly rental of Rs.30,000/-. The said tenancy was for a term of four years and the same was to expire on 31.3.2005. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, the term of the tenancy had already expired and the same stood terminated by efflux of time. The plaintiffs/respondents also served the defendants/appellants with a registered legal notice to vacate the plinth in dispute and to pay the arrears. The said legal notice was issued on 15.4.2005 and the same was duly received by the defendants/appellants. The defendants/appellants replied to the said notice stating R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2009 (O&M) 3 wrong facts and they did not either vacate the plinth in dispute or pay the arrears. The defendants/appellants are stated to be in arrears with effect from 1.4.2005. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, market rent of the plinth in dispute was Rs.50,000/- approximately and after the termination of the tenancy by efflux of time, the plaintiffs/respondents were entitled to prevailing rent. Since the defendants/appellants failed to do the needful, hence, the present suit for ejectment of the defendants/appellants from the plinth in dispute thereby directing them to hand over vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs/respondents. A decree for mesne profits was also prayed for with effect from 1.4.2005 till delivery of possession. 3. The said suit was contested by the defendants/appellants. In the written statement, various preliminary objections were taken, which shall be reflected in the issues. On merits, it was, inter alia, pleaded that the defendants/appellants had taken the plinth in dispute on hire basis with effect from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2005 at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month rent. It was further pleaded that the defendants/appellants had vacated the premises in dispute on 31.3.2005 and handed over its possession to be plaintiffs/respondents R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2009 (O&M) 4 except the area measuring 1327 square feet as shown in red colour in red colour in the site plan attached with the written statement. It was further pleaded that wheat bags accounting to 3242 belonging to the defendants/appellants were lying on the plinth in question in three stacks over the are measuring 1327 square feet, as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the written statement. It was further pleaded that the defendants/appellants are now in possession of only 1327 sq.feet area and the remaining plinth area is in possession of the plaintiffs/respondents. It was further pleaded that the defendants/appellants are ready to make payment in respect of plinth area 1327 sq. feet, which is in possession of the defendants/appellants with effect from 31.3.2005 at the agreed rate of rent of actual basis, as per letter dated 12.3.2005 written by the plaintiffs/respondents to the defendants/appellants. It was further pleaded that total capacity of the plinth are is 10,000/- metric ton but from 1.4.2005, the defendants/appellants are in possession of only 137/164 metric ton, which covered an area of 1327 sq. feet. Other plaint averments were denied and controverted and it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2009 (O&M) 5 framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for ejectment? OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits till possession is handed over? OPP 3. Whether defendants have handed over the vacant possession of suit land except area of 1327 Sq.feet to plaintiffs? OPD 4. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 6. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? OPD 7. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed true and material facts from the court? OPD 9. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 10. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs Rice Mill had filed a suit for ejectment and R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2009 (O&M) 6 mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit, defendants vacated the premises in dispute on 26.12.2005. In these circumstance, the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for mesne profits for the period from 1.4.2005 to 26.12.2005. Admittedly, as per the lease agreement Ex.D-4 an area of 10,000 metric ton was leased out to the appellants @ Rs.3/- per metric ton for a period of four years commencing from 1.4.2001. The terms of the lease expired on 31.3.2005. The case of the appellants was that, in fact, thereafter, the appellants did not require the entire plinth for storage purposes and they used to hire only that much area of the plinth as was necessary for storage. Reliance was placed on letter Ex.D-3 (attached as Annexure A-1 with this appeal), wherein, the Mill had shown its willingness to hand over the plinth from 1.4.2005 onwards on actual basis as per rates of other agencies fixed from time to time. However, the appellants failed to establish that in terms of the said offer, the rent was paid with regard to the area of plinth occupied by them as per necessity till the vacation of the premises. In these circumstances, both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, had given a finding of fact that the entire plinth in question was in occupation of the appellants and hence, they were required to pay the mesne profits for the period from 1.4.2005 to 26.12.2005 @ Rs.35,000/- per R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2009 (O&M) 7 month. The said finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 09, 2009 anita