RSA No. 3705 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 3705 of 2008 Date of decision: November 21,2008 Punjab State Electricity Board ..Appellant. Versus Smt. Bimla Kalia and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of rent with effect from 1.11.1992 to 30.11.1999 at the rate of Rs.4181/- P.M. with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum on each amount of rent from the date when it became due every month till its realization has been decreed. The brief facts of the case as set up in the plaint are that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute. The said property was let out to appellant on rent with effect from 1.11.992. It was assured by the defendants that the rent of the property shall be got assessed by the PWD authorities. In spite of several requests, the defendants failed to get the rate of rent assessed. Ultimately, the plaintiff got the assessment made on 30.6.1999 and the valuer assessed the rate of rent at Rs.8, 975/- P.M. which amounts to Rs.7,71,850/-. Despite demand, the defendants have not paid the rent. A sum of Rs.970331/- is assessed as interest at the rate of 18 % per annum. Thus a total sum of Rs.17, 42,181/- is due against the defendants, In spite of several requests, the defendants have refused to make the payment. On notice of the suit, the defendants appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that RSA No. 3705 of 2008 2 the area mentioned under tenancy is excess. However, it was admitted that the property was rented out to the defendants on 1.11.1992. It was wrong that the rent was to be assessed by the PWD authorities. The plaintiff has no right to get the rent assessed from the private authorities. The plaintiff was to follow instructions of the Superintending Engineer of the Board. The rent of the building was to be assessed by the Construction Engineer (Civil) who assessed the rent at Rs.2450/- P.M. No rent was finally settled between the parties. Hence the plaintiff cannot claim any excess rent. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.9.2001 held that the approved rate of rent was Rs. 2450/- P.M., therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the rent for the period with effect from 1.11.1992 to 30.11.1999 which comes out to be Rs. 2,08,250/- and the plaintiff is entitled to recover this amount only. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Amritsar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.1.2008 and suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed for recovery of rent from 1.11.1992 to 30.11.1999 at the rate of Rs. 4181/- P.M. with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum, on each amount of rent from the date when the amount became due every month till its realization. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Amritsar has erred at law in allowing rent at the rate of Rs.4181/- P.M. Elaborating further, the learned counsel has argued that the tenancy in this case was oral and it was decided that the rate of rent will be subsequently assessed by the Board. The competent authority to decide the case is a committee consisting of Superintending Engineer, Senior Xen and Accounts Officer vide office order No. 597/CE/B-490 dated 16.5.1979. In this case, the committee assessed the rent in its meeting dated RSA No. 3705 of 2008 3 21.1.1998 (Ex.DW1) and the rate was assessed by the Board authority at Rs.2450/- P.M. The lower Appellate Court has wrongly ignored this report of the committee Ex.DW1. It is further argued by the counsel for the appellant that the courts below have erred in taking into consideration calculations Ex. PA and PB as the same were not accepted by the Board and these were only the recommendations by the lower authorities. It has been further argued by him that in Ex. PB which was relied upon by the lower Appellate Court, the building was treated as Class (B) (II), whereas the calculations in Ex.DW1 was made taking the building as Class C. The calculations were made as per approved rate. Learned counsel has also challenged the grant of interest to the plaintiff respondent and has argued that the following substantial questions of law arise in this case. a)Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has erred in granting the rate of rent @ Rs. 4181/- especially when the tenancy was oral and the rate assessed by the competent authority of the Board as Rs. 2450/- per month vide Ex. PW1? b)Whether the lower Appellate Court has erred in taking into consideration Ex. PA & Ex. PB are the internal correspondence and which has not been passed by the competent authority and has not approved by competent authority? c)Whether the Courts below has erred in granting the interest @ 12 % per annum especially when the rate of rent was settled only on 21.1.98 and there was no agreement for the grant of interest? d)Whether the lower Appellate Court has erred in granting of the interest from the date it becomes due till its realization especially when the rate of rent was to be decided only on 21.1.98 and the plaintiff filed Civil Suit only in year 2000? e)Whether the suit is time barred? I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. However, I find no force in the arguments raised by him. The facts of the case are almost admitted. RSA No. 3705 of 2008 4 It is admitted that the appellant is owner of the building, which is in occupation of respondents as tenants. It is also not disputed that the entire building is in the occupation of respondents. It is admitted that the building was taken on rent with effect from 1.11.92. It is also admitted that respondents have not paid any rent to the appellant so far. It is also admitted that the rate of rent was to be fixed at a later date. It is also clear that the tenancy is oral. The appellant has alleged that the rate of rent was to be assessed by the P.W.D. authorities. The respondents have failed to get the rent assessed accordingly and ultimately she got the rent assessed from private concern. The report of the private concern is Ex.P2, which is proved by PW2. On the other hand, the respondents have pleaded that the rent was to be assessed by the Construction Engineer (Civil) of their department. Thus the only controversy which requires determination is as to what is the rate of rent of the building in question. As per their own stand, as taken by the appellants, the rate of rent was assessed by the Assessment Committee ignoring the report of field staff. It is not in dispute that Ex. PB is the report of Construction Wing of the respondent. The rent assessed in Ex. PB is Rs.4181/- P.M. The said calculation Ex. PB was forwarded to the higher authorities vide letter Ex. PA. However, the committee assessed rent vide Ex.DW1. I have perused the report Ex. DW1 which does not show any basis of assessment. Rather it was clear to the naked eye that the said report of the committee is nothing but cuttings and over-writing on the recommendation of the lower authorities. The lower authorities vide Ex. PA and PB have recommended the rate of rent to be fixed for the building in dispute as Class B building whereas the assessment committee has fixed the rate of rent taking the building in dispute as Class C building. There is nothing in the report of the assessment committee to show that how the committee has reached to the conclusion that the building in question is a “C” Class building or what are the reasons for the committee to differ with the recommendations of the lower staff. The said recommendations of field staff have been ignored by the assessment committee RSA No. 3705 of 2008 5 without any reason. There is no evidence on the file as to how the committee assessed the rent in Ex.DW1. No basis and methodology of the assessment of rent has been given in the report of the assessment committee Ex.DW1. The said report did not confirm or explain any norm of fixation of rent. Moreover, in the report Ex.DW1, the rate of rent has been reduced on the ground that the area of the building is more than the sanctioned area permitted to the respondent and therefore, the rent can be paid only for the sanctioned area. This reasoning of the committee cannot be accepted in any manner simply because the appellants/officers have taken the excess area on rent which is admittedly in their possession than their sanctioned permissible area. The rent cannot be denied to the land lord for the said excess area on any reasoning. Thus in my view, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and the rate of rent has been rightly assessed on the basis of Ex. PA and PB and ignoring Ex.DW1. Thus, I find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. November 21, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE RSA No. 3705 of 2008 6