R.S.A. No. 1004 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1004 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.3.2009 The Manager, The Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank and another ...Appellants. versus Baldev Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. A.S. Khaira, Advocate for the appellants. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The present regular second appeal filed by tenant- defendants No.3 and 4 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008 passed by the lower appellate Court affirming that of the trial Court dated 17.4.2008 whereby the suit of the landlord-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.29,920/- was decreed along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.4.2001 till the filing of the suit and further interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was owner of building having an area of 63.40 square yards (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) and vide rent deed dated 24.3.1998, the defendants R.S.A. No. 1004 of 2009 -2- took it on rent for running the Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank at Golewala at the agreed rate of rent of Rs.1600/- per month upto 31.3.2001. It was pleaded that as per the rent deed, the defendants had to execute a fresh rent deed with the enhanced rate of rent on the expiry of the period of the first rent deed. However, defendant No.4 did not execute any fresh rent deed and neither paid the enhanced rent nor vacated the suit property; rather occupied the same upto 7.9.2002, the date, it was vacated. As per the rent deed, defendant No.4 agreed for enhancement of rent from Rs.1600/- to Rs.1760/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2001 but he did not execute the new rent deed after the expiry of the first rent deed dated 24.3.1998 and, thus, the plaintiff was entitled to recover mesne profits and damages from the defendants for use and occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff requested the defendants to admit his claim but they refused to do so which gave rise to the filing of the suit for recovery of the same. The averments of the plaintiff were controverted by the defendants by filing a joint written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3 had not ever authorized defendant No.4 to take the suit property of the plaintiff on rent at the rate of Rs.1600/- per month, rather he was authorized to execute the rent deed before the Sub Registrar, Faridkot, on behalf of The Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Faridkot. It was further pleaded that the suit property was taken on rent for Golewala Branch Office but the office of the said Branch was shifted in the building of the Golewala Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Golewala on 17.10.1998 after vacating the suit property which was R.S.A. No. 1004 of 2009 -3- taken on rent on 24.3.1998. According to the defendants, as the suit property was vacated on 17.10.1998, the question for enhancement of rent did not arise because the same was not used after 17.10.1998, rather the plaintiff restrained the defendant-Bank forcibly to remove its safe from the suit property which was ultimately taken on 7.9.2002. It was also pleaded that keeping in view the agreement of the suit property which was upto 31.3.2001, the defendants had paid the rent upto 31.3.2001. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that since the rent deed was upto 31.3.2001 and the defendants had vacated the premises on 7.9.2002 as per Ex.P1, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the rent from 1.4.2001 to 7.9.2002 with 10% enhancement on the previous rent. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 17.4.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding him entitled to recover Rs.29,920/- from the defendants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.4.2001 till the filing of the suit and further interest at the rate of 9% per annum from filing of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. R.S.A. No. 1004 of 2009 -4- No illegality and perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The courts below on appreciation of the evidence concurrently held that the original rent deed was to last till 31.3.2001 and as per Ex.P1, the suit property was vacated by the defendants on 7.9.2002 and, thus, the defendants were in unauthorized possession of the same after 1.4.2001 till 7.9.2002 and were, therefore, liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.1760/- per month, i.e. with 10% increase on the basic rent of Rs.1600/- per month. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. The present appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. March 25, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE