IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 322 of 2001 Date of decision: 18.8.2011. Paras Ram …Appellant. Versus Agya Ram ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellant : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , J. ( Oral ) This appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 14.2.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 111/1996 affirming judgment, decree dated 13.9.1996 passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class (I), Amb, in Civil Suit No. 265 of 1987 but modifying the rate of interest from 10% to 6% per annum. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,161/- from the appellant on the ground that the appellant was his tenant in the house at the rate of Rs.200/- per month since 30.9.1984. The tenancy of the appellant was terminated vide notice dated 12.11.1986. But despite that the appellant continued in illegal occupation of the house. The respondent in the suit has claimed `.6600/- on account of rent, `.561/- on account of illegal occupation of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?yes 2 the house and ` 1000/- on account of damages. The respondent thus made total claim of ` 8,161/- in the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the appellant. He pleaded that the rent of the premises was `.50/- per month. He had spent `.2200/- on the repairs of the house. The matter was compromised between the parties and it was decided that appellant would vacate the premises and nothing would be paid to the respondent. The plaint was amended and thereafter written statement was filed to the amended plaint. The respondent filed the replication and reiterated his case. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the rent alongwith interest and damages, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether there was any compromise between the parties as a result of which, nothing will be paid by the defendant? OPD. 3. Relief. The issue No. 1 was answered partly in affirmative and issue No.2 in negative and the suit was decreed by the learned Sub Judge on 13.9.1986. It was held that respondent is entitled to recovery of rent/damages at the rate of `.200/- per month from 30.9.1984 to 12.12.1986 and thereafter upto the date of handing over of the possession i.e. June, 1987. The claim of the respondent for damages was rejected. The trial court allowed 10% interest per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. In appeal, the learned District Judge on 14.2.2001 affirmed the judgment, decree dated 13.9.1996 3 but modified the rate of interest to 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till payment. Hence, second appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether both the Courts have misread and misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence on record? 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record in returning the finding that the respondent is entitled to rent at the rate of ` 200/- per month for the period decreed in the suit. The rent of the premises was ` 50/- per month. It has been submitted that the dispute between the parties was compromised, the suit filed by the appellant against respondent was withdrawn but respondent initially allowed the present suit to be dismissed in default but lateron continued with the suit. It has been submitted that in these circumstances two Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment, decree and has submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The two Courts below on appreciation of the evidence on record have recorded a finding of fact in decreeing the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment, decree. 6. There is no written document regarding the creation of tenancy and rate of rent. The respondent has appeared as PW-1 and has stated that the house was rented out on 30.9.1984 to appellant at 4 ` 200/- per month rent, but appellant had never paid the rent. The appellant was transferred in the year 1985 to Marwari and he did not vacate the house, he rather locked the house which caused damage to the house. In the cross-examination, a suggestion has been given to the respondent that w.e.f. 1.1.1984 the appellant had paid rent to the respondent at the rate of `.50/-. The respondent has denied that the appellant had to recover `.2200/- on account of repairs, milk supply and manure. He has also denied that appellant had paid him `.600/- in advance. 7. The appellant appeared as RW-1 and has stated that the premises was taken on rent at `.50/- per month. He has stated that at the time of taking the premises on rent, `.600/- were paid in advance to the respondent. He has stated that `.300/- on account of white washing and repair were agreed, `.600/- on account of supply of milk and `.700/- for supply of manure. Thus, in all, the appellant has claimed adjustment of `.2200/-. The appellant has not placed on record any documentary proof of the alleged payments made by him to the respondent or the claim which he has put forward against the respondent. 8. The two Courts below on the basis of evidence on record have recorded a finding of fact that the rate of rent was `.200/- per month, the claim decreed by the two Courts below has been established on record. The evidence in second appeal cannot be re- appreciated. It is not a case where inadmissible evidence has been considered by the Courts in giving relief to the respondent and material evidence has been ignored. The view taken by the two Courts below 5 emerges from the evidence on record. There is no merit in the appeal. The substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. 9. In view of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. August 18, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.