R.S.A.No. 2534 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2534 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.7. 2009 M/s Sangrur Auto Words and another ......Appellants Versus Gurnam Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate and Mr.K.S.Deol, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff- Gurnam Singh filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of shop No.5 shown as ABCD in the site plan. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.2007. In appeal filed by the defendants, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide judgment and decree dated 3.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional R.S.A.No. 2534 of 2009 (O&M) 2 District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are as under:- “2. The brief facts of the suit are that plaintiff Gurnam Singh is the owner-landlord of the shop in dispute which was taken on rent by the defendants for a period of 11 months vide rent deed dated 16.7.1999. Defendant No.2 had taken the shop in dispute on rent for running his business of Auto Works in the name and style of M/s Sangrur Auto Works and rate of rent was settled at Rs.2700/- per month to be paid in advance on or before 7th of every month excluding the water and electricity charges. The defendants were to vacate the shop after 30.6.2000, but they did not vacate the same and as such, since 1.7.2000, they are in unauthorized possession of the shop. The market rate of rent of the shop in dispute is Rs.4,000/- per month. The defendants are liable to pay the damages for illegal and unauthorized occupation of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff since 1.7.2000 @ Rs.4,000/- per month. Plaintiff requested the defendants many times to vacate the shop and to pay the amount of Rs.57,000/-, but with no effect. The plaintiff then issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act on 3.12.2001, but even then, they did not vacate the same. Hence, the suit. R.S.A.No. 2534 of 2009 (O&M) 3 3. The defendants-respondents filed written statement denying the execution of the rent note as well as the ownership of the plaintiff. However, it is pleaded that he has been paying the rent only @ Rs.700/- per month and it is a mystery as to how the plaintiff has written and shown the rent as Rs.2,700/- per month. The market rate of the rent of such like shop is not more than Rs.700/- per month. He has already paid the entire rent, but keeping in view the good relations between the parties, he did not receive any receipt. So much so, an advance of Rs.5,000/- was taken by the plaintiff, which is yet to be adjusted in future rent. Service of the notice has also been denied and it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. The case of the plaintiff is that the shop in question was given on rent to the defendants vide rent deed dated 16.7.1999. The R.S.A.No. 2534 of 2009 (O&M) 4 defendants failed to pay the rent from 1.7.2000 onwards. The plaintiff, thereafter, terminated the tenancy of the defendants by issuing a notice dated 3.12.2001. In order to prove due execution of the rent deed, the plaintiff examined PW-2 Ujjagar Singh, the attesting witness of the rent deed. The defence of the defendants, on the other hand, was struck off due to non-compliance of the order regarding payment of arrears of rent to the plaintiff. Thus, there was no material evidence on record to the effect that the defendants had paid the rent in question. The plaintiff had proved due execution of the rent deed and there is no evidence on record that the same was a result of forgery and fabrication. Simple denial by the defendants regarding the execution of the rent deed is not sufficient to discard the rent note. Rather it is a case where the evidence of the plaintiff has gone un- rebutted. In these circumstances, the Courts below have rightly held that in view of the rent deed Ex.P-1, which is duly signed by the defendant, the rate of rent was Rs.2,700/- per month and the defendants had failed to pay the rent. During the pendency of the appeal, admittedly, the appellants have handed over the vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff. Till the possession was retained by the appellants, the plaintiff is entitled to receive the damages qua unauthorized use and occupation of the demised premises. R.S.A.No. 2534 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Hence, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below call for no interference. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 13, 2009 anita