R.S.A. No. 1252 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1252 of 2005 Date of Decision: 6.11.2008 Ramesh Partap ...Appellant. Versus Subhash Chander ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondent. ***** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being RSA Nos. 1252 of 2005 and 3513 of 2006 as though both of them arise from two different suits but common questions of facts are involved therein. In this case, defendant-appellant was in possession of the demised premises as tenant under Smt. Rajinder Kaur (plaintiff in civil suit No. 82 of 24.3.1998) who later on sold the same to Subhash Chander and thereafter the defendant-appellant became tenant of said Subhash Chander. Two civil suits were filed against the defendant- appellant, one by Subhash Chander for possession of the demised premises and for recovery of arrears of rent as well as mesne profit, relating to the period 13.2.1998 to 1.11.1998 and the other by Smt. Rajinder Kaur for recovery of the arrears of rent for the period from R.S.A. No. 1252 of 2005 -2- 13.2.1995 to 12.2.1998. Both the suits were decreed by the trial court and the judgments and decrees of the trial court were upheld by the lower appellate court except modifying the rate of interest payable by the appellant. Hence, the present two regular second appeals by the tenant. Put shortly, the facts of the case filed by Subhash Chander (vendee) are that he filed a suit for ejectment/possession of the demised premises and for recovery of arrears of rent as well as mesne profits against the defendant on the averments that the demised premises which is a portion of Tughal Building situated at Partap Nagar, Akalgarh Distt. Ludhiana was taken by the defendant on rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month from Smt. Rajinder Kaur (vendor) wife of Baldev Singh vide agreement dated 1.3.1994. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had purchased 1/3rd share of the above said building including demised premises from said Smt. Rajinder Kaur vide sale deed dated 13.2.1998 registered on 17.2.1998 for a consideration of Rs.16,500/-. It was further pleaded that the defendant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 13.2.1998 and the tenancy was from month to month and terminable at any time by the plaintiff after giving 15 days' notice as envisaged under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As the plaintiff did not want to continue the defendant as his tenant, he served a notice dated 10.10.1998 upon the defendant for termination of the tenancy and called upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises on or before 2.11.1998. According to the plaintiff, the possession of the defendant over the demised premises was that of a trespasser w.e.f. 2.11.1998. As the defendant failed to pay any heed to R.S.A. No. 1252 of 2005 -3- the request of the plaintiff, he filed the suit. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that the defendant never took the premises on rent rather it was Sita Devi, wife of the defendant, who took the demised premises from Smt. Rajinder Kaur at the rate of Rs.100/- per month in the year of 1992. It was further pleaded that the electric meter was also installed in the name of said Sita Devi. The alleged writing dated 1.3.1994 was inadmissible in evidence as the same was not registered. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. Similarly, the original owner, Smt. Rajinder Kaur, also filed a civil suit for recovery of the arrears of rent for the period from 13.2.1995 to 12.2.1998 and this claim of the plaintiff, Smt. Rajinder Kaur, was denied by the defendant by pleading that he never took the demised premises from Smt. Rajinder Kaur. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties held that vide the writing dated 1.3.1994, the demised premises were rented out to the defendant @ Rs.300/- per month. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2002 decreed both the suits holding the plaintiff Subhash Chander entitled to the relief of possession of the demised premises and also to recover a sum of Rs.2835/- being the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month and mesne profits w.e.f. 2.11.1998 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Plaintiff Smt. Rajinder Kaur R.S.A. No. 1252 of 2005 -4- was also held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,800/- being arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and 6% simple interest from the date of decree till realization of the decretal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant took the matter in appeals and the lower appellate court vide two separate judgments and decrees dated 14.2.2005 upheld the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court with a modification to the extent that the plaintiffs would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum on the arrears of rent and mesne profits. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to persuade this Court to reappreciate the evidence on record so as to differ with the findings recorded by the courts below but could not pin-point any misreading or misapprecation of the evidence by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The findings recorded by the lower appellate court regarding the factum of tenancy of the defendant-appellant under the plaintiff during the period in question as well as the rate of rent, as claimed by the plaintiff being well reasoned, thus, could not be successfully assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the face of its observations that the writing dated 1.3.1994 was not a lease deed but in fact was a memorandum of terms and conditions of tenancy and, therefore, did not require registration, and that there was admission of the appellant in the suit filed by Smt. Rajinder Kaur to the effect that he took the premises in R.S.A. No. 1252 of 2005 -5- dispute on rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month from Smt. Rajinder Kaur. In view of the above, there is no merit in both the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. November 6, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE R.S.A. No. 1252 of 2005 -6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3513 of 2006 Date of Decision: 6.11.2008 Ramesh Partap ...Appellant. Versus Rajinder Kaur ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see separate judgment of even date recorded in RSA No. 1252 of 2005 (Ramesh Partap Vs. Subhash Chander). November 6, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE