Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 26.8.2025 vs Sudha Thakur on 8 September, 2025
2025:HHC:30552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RSA No. 234 of 2018
Reserved on: 26.8.2025
.
Date of decision: 8.9.2025.
M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sudha Thakur ...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
r to
Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Ishan Sharma,
Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge:
This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2018, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 07/2008RBT No. 77 of 2009 has been affirmed.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -2-2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,99,500/- along with interest at the rate of .
12% per annum against the appellant herein/defendant on account of arrears of rent and certain other charges viz expenses of the execution of lease deed No. 121 dated 3.1.2004, amount paid by the plaintiff to Ministry of Road and Transport (Highway) and interest etc.
3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred by the same status, as they held before the learned trial Court.
4. Plaintiff was allotted retail outlet for sale of Diesel and Petrol at Krishna Nagar, Ward No.1, Hamirpur by the defendant. The availability of land and infrastructure was the responsibility of the plaintiff, which according to the plaintiff had been duly arranged.
5. The plaintiff filed the suit on the premise that as per the settled norms, the defendant was liable to pay the rent for the land utilized for retail outlet of the defendant.
The plaintiff had placed reliance on the terms incorporated in Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 28.1.2004, issued by the defendant. The plaintiff had claimed that she had arranged the land for setting up of the retail outlet of ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -3- defendant. Part of the land was taken on lease by the plaintiff from one Smt. Kusum Lata at Rs. 13,000/- per .
month and remaining land belonging to the husband of the plaintiff was also arranged for being utilized against the payment of rent of Rs. 6000/- per month.
6. Having failed to receive the rent for both lands, despite commencement of operation of the outlet w.e.f.
12.2.2005, plaintiff filed the suit, claiming the arrears of rent w.e.f. 12.2.2005. In addition, a sum of Rs. 22,500/-
was claimed as charges of execution of lease deed with Smt. Kusum Lata and other sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed having been paid by the plaintiff to the Ministry of Road and Transport (Highway), New Delhi.
7. The defendant contested the suit. Various legal objections as to maintainability, estoppel, want of cause of action etc. were raised. On merits, the defendant did not explicitly deny its liability to pay the rent for the land in question principally. However, it was stated that the land on which the retail outlet was established was deficient in meeting the requisite criteria. As per defendant, the land taken from Smt. Kusum Lata and other parcel of land ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -4- belonging to the husband of the plaintiff were separated by Government land, which was in the nature of a public .
path. It was alleged that the plaintiff had suppressed this material fact and when it came to the notice of the defendant, it had rightly backed out from entering into any lease agreement with respect to the suit land. In this view of the matter, the defendant had denied its liability to pay
8. to the claimed rent to the plaintiff.
Learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
"i) Whether the defendant had committed the breach of the terms of the allotment letter issued by it? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff has suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 9,99, 000/- due to said breach? OPP
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum? OPP
iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
v) Whether the plaintiff is estopped form filing the present suit by her act and conduct? OPD.
vi) Relief.
8. Issue No.1 was decided in affirmative, whereas Issues No. 3 to 6 were decided in negative. The plaintiff was held entitled to part of the suit amount and for such reason, Issue No.2 was partially decided in favour of the plaintiff, resultantly, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -5-
8,62,000/- along with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable till realization of entire decretal amount.
.
The claim of the plaintiff for the amount towards execution of lease agreement, procurement of NOC from Ministry of Road and Transport (Highway) and interest at the rate of 12% was declined. The plaintiff was held entitled to the rent at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per month for the land taken on lease from Smt. Kusum Lata and Rs. 6000/- per month for the land belonging to the husband of the plaintiff.
9. In first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code, the defendant has remained unsuccessful. The learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.
10. This appeal was admitted on 14.3.2019 on the following substantial questions of law:-
"i) Whether the claim filed by the respondent-plaintiff is in consonance with the contractual obligations inter se the parties?
ii) Whether the courts below failed to appreciate that no lease rentals was ever agreed between the parties herein w.e.t. land in question in the absence of any lease agreement.::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -6-
iii) Whether the courts below have wrongly ignored plan Ex. DW2/A prepared by late Shri Mast Ram, qua which DW-2 i.e. Harnam Singh has testified and copy of Jamabandi Ext. DW3/A which reflects .
that Khasra No. 242 is a path which belongs to the H.P. Government and is in the possession of the Municipal Committee, Hamirpur?
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
11. Mr. Ashwani to K. Sharma, Advocate, representing the defendant/appellant would r learned Senior contend that in absence of any concluded contract between the parties to pay the rent, fixation of liability against the defendant/appellant was perverse and against the law. He would submit that the terms of LOI could not be considered to be binding on the defendant. The defendant was justified in not executing the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff for the reasons that the land did not comply with the requirements of defendant company. He placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dresser Rand S.A. vs. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd & another, 2006 (1) SCC 751 and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs. S. Kumar's Associates AKM (JV) to ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -7- assert that the terms of LOI could not be construed as concluded contract between the parties.
.
12. Learned trial Court returned specific findings of fact that the stand of the defendant with respect to the land in question being separated by Government path stood established by the evidence on record. Nonetheless, the mere existence of such fact was held as not sufficient reason for the defendant to back out from its liability to reimburse the payment of rent to the plaintiff. It has been so held on the premise that since, defendant had allowed the plaintiff to establish and continue with operations of the retail outlet, it could be clearly inferred that the defendant had not considered the alleged shortcoming as a fundamental breach. Learned trial Court has observed that the defendant had never come forward to terminate the retailership of the plaintiff on the aforesaid ground. Thus, the defendant having acquiesced with the existing condition of land, according to learned trial Court, could not subsequently point out the alleged flaw only for the purpose of evading liability to pay the rent.
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -8-13. The learned First Appellate Court has also not found any fault in the findings of fact recorded by the .
learned trial Court and has accordingly affirmed such findings.
14. This Court while deciding Regular Second Appeal will not go into any such question of fact which has concurrently been held as proved by both the Courts unless any perversity is pointed out. Having gone through the record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the above noted findings returned by the learned courts.
15. The defendant, in the facts of instant case, cannot be allowed to raise the plea of want of concluded contract as an excuse to evade liability of rent. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the only defence for circumventing the liability to pay the rent was that there was a public path separating the land on which the retail outlet was established. As rightly observed by both the courts, the defendant having allowed the plaintiff to establish and run the retail outlet on the said land, it cannot turn around to point out the shortcomings in the ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -9- land only for the purpose of the evasion the payment of rent.
.
16. Even in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the defendant, the proposition of law laid down is that even the terms of LOI can be construed as concluded contract, in case the intention so appears. As noticed above, it is not the case of the defendant that the liability to pay the rent was not part of the proposed terms of contract. Once the defendant had allowed the plaintiff to run the retail outlet on the land in question, merely non execution of a separate lease agreement will not absolve the defendant from its liability to reimburse the payment of rent to the plaintiff.
17. In result, I find no infirmity and illegality, much less perversity in the impugned judgment. Substantial question No.1 is answered in affirmative and remaining questions are answered in negative.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree dated 31.01.2018, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2014, affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014, ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS -10- passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 07/2008 RBT No. 77 of 2009,is further .
affirmed.
19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. The appeal is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.
8th September, 2025.
(kck)
r to (Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:30:55 :::CIS