RSA No.235 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.235 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2009 M/s Rinku Commercial Carriers Ltd. ......Appellant Versus Prem Dutt Sharma ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.771-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application,delay of 106 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.235 of 2008 (O&M) This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent has been accepted and suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed with costs. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendant- respondent for recovery of Rs.1,44,950/-. The case of the appellant is that defendant was owner in possession of the premises measuring about 300 sq.yards situated within the revenue estate of village Baroli. He was having good family relations with Rajesh Aggarwal, the Director of the plaintiff/appellant-Company. The plaintiff-appellant wanted to establish its office at Faridabad and the defendant offered to rent out the premises RSA No.235 of 2008 (O&M) 2 consisting of two room set, one kitchen, one toilet and vacant area to the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant took the premises of Prem Dutt Sharma on rent and paid Rs.1,00,000/- in advance towards rent in respect of the premises even prior to the inception of the tenancy to defendant Prem Dutt due to good family relations and to help him to tide over immediate financial difficulties to complete the construction of the premises. The premises were incomplete and under construction even on the day of execution of rent agreement on 9.1.1998. The terms and conditions of the rent agreement provided inter alia that the tenancy would start with effect from 10.1.1998. The defendant, Prem Dutt Sharma, failed to complete the construction of bathroom, toilet, kitchen or arrange for water connection and proper ventilation and the plaintiff could not establish its full fledged office. The defendant despite repeated requests failed to complete construction to enable the plaintiff to establish its office and managed to obtain another sum of Rs.10,000/- on the pretext that the money was required to complete the construction. This led the plaintiff to file a suit for the recovery of the amount with interest. They defendant upon notice appeared to contest the suit. Admitting the factum of letting out the premises described in the opening para of the judgment, it was also admitted that the premises was let out to the plaintiff for tractor godown on payment of monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- with effect from 10.1.1998 vide rent agreement dated 9.1.1998. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the defendant towards security deposit refundable at the time of vacation of the premises and paid five months' advance rent of Rs.60,000/- to be adjusted in equal 11 monthly installments and the plaintiff was to make payment of monthly rent of Rs.5,637/-. The plaintiff was also to pay electricity and water charges besides the monthly rent. The plaintiff took the possession of the premises but failed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.5,637/- per month RSA No.235 of 2008 (O&M) 3 after adjusting the advance rent. It was denied that the construction of the premises was incomplete and the money was paid to meet urgent financial needs to complete construction. The plaintiff took the possession of the premises on 10.1.1998, used the premises as tractor godown and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- after expiry of one month of the tenancy on 9.2.1998. The defendant denied all other averments specifically and pleaded that the plaintiff had failed to pay the rent and filed a false and frivolous suit to avoid payment of balance rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff filed replication, reiterating the averments contained in the plaint and controverting the contentions of the defendant in the written statement. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective case. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and evaluating the evidence on record, decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 31.1.2005. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the defendant filed an appeal which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.2.2007 and the suit of the plaintiff-Company was dismissed with costs. The pleaded case of the plaintiff-appellant is that it wanted to set up an office in Faridabad. Rajesh Aggarwal, Director of the plaintiff- Company who was having cordial relations with defendant Prem Dutt Sharma agreed to take the premises of Prem Dutt Sharma on rent. Prem Dutt Sharma was paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to complete the construction. The defendant obtained money but failed to complete the construction and refused to refund the money. The stand of Prem Dutt Sharma on the other hand is that the premises was let out for tractor godown purposes and an amount of RSA No.235 of 2008 (O&M) 4 Rs.40,000/- was paid as security and Rs.60,000/- as rent for five months was paid in advance. The advance rent was to be adjusted in 11 equal monthly instalments and the plaintiff was to pay Rs.5,637/- per month. Thus, the defendant-respondent did not dispute or deny the receipt of money. The question for determination before the Courts below was whether the premises was let out for setting up an office of the plaintiff- Company or whether the premises was let out to be used as tractor godown and what was the purpose for which the amount was paid. Admittedly, the parties had executed the rent agreement. The Lower Appellate Court after appreciating the terms and conditions of the rent agreement Ex.P-21 found that from the terms and conditions of the rent agreement, it is clear that the premises was let out to be used as a tractor godown and not for setting up of an office of the Company and in fact from the terms and conditions of the rent agreement, the case of the defendant is completely proved. It is well settled that when the terms of a tenancy have been reduced in the form of a document, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement is admissible between the parties, varying, adding to or substracting from the terms and conditions of the documents. The Lower Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that even PW-1 appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-Company admitted that the premises were taken on rent to be used as tractor godown and the Company had no other premises at Faridabad except the tenanted premises on rent during the period 1998-99. Thus, on appreciation of evidence the Lower Appellate Court recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to refund of money as claimed as he had no cause of action to maintain the suit. Counsel for the appellant was unable to challenge the findings of the Lower appellate Court. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. RSA No.235 of 2008 (O&M) 5 No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. January 14, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE