R.S.A.No. 3346 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3346 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.5.2011 Municipal Council, Palika Bazar, Panipat ......Appellant Versus Krishan Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.K.Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the letter dated 5.11.2003. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the shop in dispute had been rented out to the plaintiff by the defendant in an open auction @ ` 1,010/- per month. The plaintiff had been paying the monthly rent regularly without any default. Vide memo No.3830/ 3983 dated 13.8.1998/ 20.8.1998, plaintiff was asked to deposit arrears of enhanced rent to the tune of ` 61,940/-. Plaintiff sent reply to the said notice and continued making payment of rent at the old R.S.A.No. 3346 of 2010 2 rate. Thereafter, the defendant suddenly refused to accept rent from the plaintiff and filed a petition for ejectment under the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. The said petition was pending before the Sub Divisional officer (Civil), Panipat, exercising the powers of Collector. Defendant, in its written statement, admitted that the rate of rent had been settled at ` 1,010/- per month at the time of auction. Later it had been enhanced to ` 1,212/- per month in the month of February, 1988 and to ` 1,455/- per month in the month of February, 1991. In February, 1996, the rate of rent was again enhanced to ` 1,746/- per month and in the month of February, 2001, rent was again enhanced to ` 2,095/- per month. The plaintiff had not paid the enhanced rent from February, 1988 onwards. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is tenant over the shop in dispute under the defendant at the rent of ` 1,010/- per month? OPP. 2. Whether the rent of ` 1,746/- has neither been settled between the parties to the suit and thus, the plaintiff is not liable to pay the rent of the demised shop at the rate of ` 1,746/- per month and thus the letter memo No.5520 dated 5.11.2003 issued by defendant is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP 3. In case issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff then whether the plaintiff is also entitled injunction, as prayed for ? OPD R.S.A.No. 3346 of 2010 3 4.Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands ? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the shop in dispute was rented out to the plaintiff in an open auction in February 1985 at monthly rent of ` 1,010/-. The case of the plaintiff was that he had been regularly paying the said agreed rent, whereas, the case of the defendant- Municipal Council was that the rate of rent had been enhanced from time to time and the plaintiff had failed to deposit the rent at the enhanced rate. However, the factum of an enhancement of rent was never brought to the notice of the plaintiff. Learned Additional District Judge, in para 12 of its judgment, has observed that from the statement of the Clerk of the Municipal Council, DW-1, it was evident that the conditions qua enhancement of rent were never brought to the notice of the plaintiff. It has further been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge that it was proved on record that the plaintiff R.S.A.No. 3346 of 2010 4 had been regularly paying the rent @ ` 1,010/- per month till the year 2000 and the rent was being accepted by the defendant-Municipal Council till then. Receipts were also issued in favour of the plaintiff qua payment of rent. No notice was issued to the plaintiff qua enhancement of rent. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly observed that the enhanced rate of rent to the tune of ` 1,746/- per month had never been settled between the parties and hence, the plaintiff cannot be held liable to pay the rent at the said rate. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the rate of rent had been unilaterally enhanced by the defendant without informing the plaintiff. The said finding of fact calls for no interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 27, 2011 anita