Regular Second Appeal No. 710 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 710 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.2.2009 *** Krishan Lal .. Appellant VS. Satpal .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendant's regular second appeal. He has lost concurrently in a suit for possession filed by plaintiff-respondent and has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute and the learned trial Court directed him to pay a rent of Rs.1000/- per month from 1.8.2002 to 30.9.2002 and from 1.10.2002 to pay Rs.1000/- to the plaintiff for use and occupation of the shop along with interest @ 11% per annum. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the appellant seeking possession of the shop in dispute with the averments that the same was rented out to the defendant-appellant vide rent note dated 4.2.1999 and despite issuance of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, the defendant has failed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop. The stand of the defendant, on the other hand, was that since the construction is old one the provisions of Haryana Rent Act No.11 of 1973 were applicable and as such the present suit is not maintainable. After the contest the suit was decreed in the manner indicated above and the appeal filed by the defendant has been dismissed, leading to the institution of instant regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. It emerges out from the records that there is no dispute as to the Regular Second Appeal No. 710 of 2009 2 relationship of tenant-landlord between the parties, which came into existence on 16.1.1999 vide rent note dated 4.2.999. It is also admitted by defendant that he paid the monthly rent of the shop @ Rs.1000/-. The plea that the provisions of Rent Act are to apply in the case in hand did not find favour of the Courts below in view of the fact that the shop in dispute fell to the share of the plaintiff in a family partition by way of decree in the year 1994 and after that he got its site plan sanctioned on 16.3.1996 vide site plan Ex.P7. Moreover, the said plea has adequately been dealt by the learned appellate Court in para No.8 of its judgment. Although some violation of provisions of Section 207 of the Haryana Municipal Act and provisions of Income Tax Act has been alleged to say that the alleged construction has been raised after the sanction had already elapsed and that the plaintiff admittedly, did not show the expenditure incurred on raising of the construction in his Income Tax Returns, but that plea has rightly been turned down by observing that violation, if any, is vis-a-vis the plaintiff and Municipal Committee and the Income Tax authorities and the defendant- appellant cannot derive any benefit therefrom. Thus, both the Courts below rightly concluded that since the tenancy of defendant has come to an end with the service of due notice, he is liable to hand over the shop in question to the plaintiff-landlord and for use and occupation of the shop, he is liable to pay admitted amount of Rs.1000/- per month till handing over of the possession of the shop. Although the learned trial court awarded interest @ 11% per annum, but finding the same on excessive side, the learned appellate Court below rightly modified the judgment of the learned trial court by reducing the same to 6% per annum. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than the one recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 11,2009 Jiten