H'GH COijRT OF Ci-'N&TTiSGASH AT B'LASPU i'-U'f^ S~~li ^F'yt.^ ^tp £~h;^ ^ "^ri^i"" ^ A ^ ^^ ^^a^. ; ; i^atf'tu^^=E^j ~^i—^^*^ £ S*c^Sdt»ijn^^w?S—^s^s '^ '.sisar.'sia.^. s^ &MT Kishore Tiwari VERSUS Smt. Padma Maheshwari Post for Dronouncement of iudament on C-3-2009 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge '^- g3pm=- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FSB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma.J.I SECQNDAPPEAL No. 37/2009 APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Kishore Tiwari son of late G.P. Tiwari aged about 40 years, occupation Transporter, resident of village Ganjpara, Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg, C.G. Smt. Padma Maheshwari, D/o Uttam Chand Maheshwari, Aged about 44 years, R/o Maheshwari Complex, Old Bus Stand, Bemetara, District Durg, CG. Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari counsel for the appellant. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT ( ^.03.2009) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2009 passed by the Additional district Judge, Bemetara in Civil Appeal No. 1-B/2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 1.7.2008passed by the Civil Judge Class I Bemetara in civil suit No. 2-B/2006 2. The ground of challenge in this appeal is that the findings of the Courts below are perverse as they are based on an agreement which was not in force. 3. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree. 4. Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is the tenant of the r%pondent and was 'regularly paying the rent to her. An agreement of tenancy was executed between the parties on 27.4.1996 to be effective for a period of 11 months from 1.8.1996 with a condition that ifthe tenant is not able to hand over the possession to the respondent after expiry of the period agreed upon, he -=":^p, •2. — would pay Rs. 40 per day as damages. The agreement also stipulated that if the rent was not paid by the 10 day of every month, he would further pay Rs. 30 per day as damages. He submitted that according to the provisions of Section 25 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act (for short the "Act") the landlord was required to issue the receipt for the rent paid to her but in this case she has failed to do so. He further submits that no rent was due on the appellant and therefore, he was not liable for the damages of Rs. 30 per day in accordance with the agreement which was not in force after the period of 11 months. He submits that the Courts below have committed an illegality in decreeing the suit for recovery of rent and damages at the rate of Rs. 30 per day. He further submitted that the appeal may be admitted on the following proposed substantial questions of law: A) Whether, the findings arrived by the Courts are perverse being against the pleadings and evidence of the case? B). Whether, the agreement and relief claimed by the plaintiff was barred by law of Limitation? C) Whether, a plaintiff failing in his duty to give copy of receipt for the payments of rent u/s 250 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 can subsequently claim for rents alleging non-payment of rents? 5. This is a second appeal on behalf of the tenant. Both the parties had entered into an agreement on 27.4.1996 which reveals that the tenancy was only for a period of 11 months from 1.8.1996 and after expiry of the said period the appellant/tenant was required to hand over the • possession to the respondent/landlord and if he failed to do so after the said period, he would be liable for payrfient of Rs. 40 per day to the landlord as damages. It is not disputed that the appellant did not hand over the possession after the period of 11 months and continued to be in possession of the tenanted premises even thereaffer. According fo the claim of the appellant/tenant he has regularly paid the rent. -3 However, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties Court for the first instance arrived at a finding that the appellant has not paid the rent and decreed the suit for recovery of rent and damages which was affirmed in first appeal. 6. Judgment and decree of the courts below reveals that the appellant/tenant consumed the electricity but not paid the electricity bill of Rs. 1884 which ultimately was paid by the respondent/landlord to save herself from discontinuance of electricity supply. Courts below have passed the decree of recovery of electricity charges and also directed for future payment of electricity charges. Section 25 of the Act cast the duty on the tenant to pay the rent regularly and on the landlord to issue receipt of the rent received from the tenant. But in case the landlord fails to issue receipt then the tenant is required to deposit the rent with Rent Controlling Authority and such deposit of the rent will bea full discharge of the tenant from the liability to pay rent to the landlord. 7. It is claimed by the appellant/tenant that the respondent/landlord has not issued the receipt in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, but he has not shown his bona fides whether he has deposited the rent before the Rent Controlling Authority for his full discharge from the liability to pay rent to the landlord. Findings of the courts below are based on the evidence adduced by the parties. Appellant is under obligation to pay rent and electricity charges regularly but he has failed to do so. Courts below have decreed the suit on the aforesaid two grounds and also directed for future payment of electricity charges. 8. After hearing counsel for the appellant/tenant and perusing the Judgment and decree passed by the courts below 1 am of the view that the findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any lillegality. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismis^ed at the admission stage itself. u' ^ ^- 10. Appellant shall bear the cost of appeal as also the cost before the courts below for himself as well as for the respondent. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge f's J ";•<£;-;.-. id^