RSA No.4479 f 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4479 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 24,2011 Hari Pal ...........Appellant Versus Balwant Singh through his LRs ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.H.K.Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs has filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that the shop-in- dispute was owned by the plaintiffs and had been given on rent to the defendants prior to the year 1992. Since the defendant was threatening to make alteration in the shop in dispute, a suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendant agreed to pay rent @ ` 250/- per month with effect from 1.1.1993. The rate of rent was increased to ` 500/- per month with effect from 1.1.1995. The rate of rent was again enhanced to ` 700/- per month with effect from 1.1.2000. However, the defendant had failed to pay rent with effect from 1.1.2001. A notice dated 29.4.2002 was served on the defendant qua termination of tenancy with effect from 31.5.2002. However, the vacant possession of the shop had not been handed over to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 in his written statement averred that he was a tenant under the plaintiffs on a monthly rent of ` 15/- per month since the year 1970. The rate of rent was enhanced to ` 35/- per month and then to ` RSA No.4479 f 2009 2 70/- per month in the year 1980. In the year 1993, the rate of rent was enhanced to ` 250/- per month and the same had been paid upto November 2001. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had refused to accept the rent from December 2001 onwards. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the shop? 2.Whether the rate of rent is Rs.700/- per month after enhancement as alleged?OPP 3.Wheher the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount. If so to what extent?OPP 4.Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 11.1.2007, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession by way of ejectment of defendants. Plaintiffs were also held entitled to recover rent at the rate of ` 700/- per month,if due.. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2009. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1-Hari Pal. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant,I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiffs are owner of the shop in dispute. The Rent Act is not applicable to the present case as the property in dispute is not situated in the Urban area. The case of the plaintiffs is that the rate of rent was ` 700/- per month,whereas, the case of the defendants was that the RSA No.4479 f 2009 3 rate of rent was ` 250/- per month. There was no written agreement between the parties qua the terms of the tenancy. Defendant examined Harjinder Singh in support of his plea that the rate of rent was ` 250/- per month. The learned trial Court rightly held that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the said witness as Harjinder Singh was also a tenant under the plaintiffs and a suit for ejectment was pending against the said witness. Harjinder Singh was, thus, rightly described as an interested witness. Defendant had failed to place on record any receipt which could establish the rate of rent. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, has examined PW3 Rajinder Singh an independent witness. The said witness has supported the plea of the plaintiffs qua rate of rent. Defendant tendered arrears of rent @ ` 700/- per month in compliance of order passed by this Court in C.R. No. 2128 of 2005. A notice was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 dated 29.4.2002 by the plaintiffs qua termination of tenancy to the defendant. The said notice was duly received by the defendant. Since the notice had been duly served on the defendant qua termination of the tenancy, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 24, 2011 arya