Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Industrial & ... vs Pushpinder Singh on 9 October, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: 9.10.2009
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation
--Appellant
Vs.
Pushpinder Singh
-Respondent
Coream: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant.
Sabina J.
Plaintiff- Pushpinder Singh had filed a suit for declaration. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panchkula, Haryana vide judgment and decreed dated 29.2.2008 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same defendants had filed an appeal. Additional District Judge, Panchkula, had dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 10.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.
Brief facts of the case as noticed by learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment are as under:-
"2.Sans verbiage, the facts of this case are that the plaintiff was proprietor of M/s Auto Links and Ancillary to M/s Hindustan Machine Tools, Pinjore, Initially, shed No. 243 was allotted to the plaintiff on - but the said allotment was cancelled before delivery of possession and a sum of Rs. 21,702/- paid by the plaintiff was returned to him. R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -2- Thereafter, defendant No. 2 allotted sheds No. 443 and 444, Industrial Area, Panchkula to the plaintiff's company at a cost of Rs. 3,96,000/- for each shed on 26.06.1991. It was alleged by the plaintiff that this price was higher than the prevailing price of Rs. 2.85,000/- each but the plaintiff accepted the allotment in view of threat of cancellation of business given by Director of Industries, Haryana. Possession of the sheds was given to the plaintiff on 2.8.1993. It was agreed that the plaintiff would pay rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month for each shed for a period of two years and would continue to be a tenant for two years and thereafter payment made by him would be converted into price of the sheds under hire-purchase agreement. It was pleaded that the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 1,63,602/- between 2.11.1987 and 21.06.1994.
3. It was further pleaded that tenancy period of the plaintiff was from 2.8.1993 to 1.8.1995 and that agreed rent of Rs. 3000/- was Rs. 1,44,200/- for both the sheds whereas the plaintiffs had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,63,602/- which was in excess of the agreed price and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 19,402/-. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No. 2 charged interest @ 23% per annum on the said amount, that the plaintiff claimed Rs, 1.08,000/- as rent for the period from August, 1993 to 31.3.1995 and Rs. 1,30,500/- as interest, that the plaintiff was already made payment but defendant No. 2 wrongly, resumed the sheds. The plaintiff challenged the resumption order as illegal, null and void. It R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -3- was pleaded that the defendants were requested to admit claim of the plaintiff and cancel resumption but on their failure to do so he filled the present suit.
4. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement and opposed the suit questioning it maintainability, disputing cause of action and locus standi in favour of the plaintiff and pleaded concealment of true and material facts. On merits, defendant No. 2 admitted allotment of sheds No. 443, 444 to the plaintiff on 26.6.1993 @ Rs. 3.96 lacs each on the terms and condition given in the allotment letter; that the plaintiff was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 80,000/- 5towards costs of the sheds before taking possession and to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money and also pay Rs. 3000/- per month per shed for two years. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had represented for adjustment of amount of Rs. 19,900/- which was due from the previous allottees and that the said request of the plaintiff was consideration and decision was conveyed to the plaintiff on 21.9.1993. Defendant No. 2 denied payment of Rs. 1,63,602/- by the plaintiff and asserted that a sum of Rs. 1.22.000/- only was paid by him towards earnest money and that a sum of Rs. 6,94,255/- was still outstanding against him as on 31.5.1995 made up of as under:-
Cost of two sheds @ Rs. 3.96lacs per shed - 7,92,000/-
Earnest money received -1,22,000/-
______________
6,70,000/-
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -4-
Interest on outstanding rent - 24,255/-
Upto 31.5.1995
___________________-
6,94,255/-
5. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that several reminders and notices were issued to the plaintiff but he failed to pay the outstanding amount, that he owed Rs. 1,08,000/- as arrears of rent for the period from August, 1993 to 31.3.1995. It was further pleaded that agreement was voluntarily executed between the parties on 21.7.1993 and therefore, the plaintiff was bound by terms and conditions of the said agreement.
Defendant No. 2 counter asserted the resumption order to be legal and valid. Defendant No. 2 denied entire claim of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs." On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has paid rent @ Rs. 3000/- p.m. for the sheds bearing No. 443 and 444, Industrial Area, Panchkula?
OPP
2. If issue no. 1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff then whether the claim of defendant No. 2 for Rs. 1,08,000/- from 9/93 to 31.3.1995 and Rs. 1,30,500/- as interest thereupon and further documentation in regard to the sheds in question is null R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -5- and void? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD
6. Relief.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit.
Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the defendants be restrained from cancelling/resuming the sheds in question. Admittedly, two shed were allotted by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff vide letter dated 31.6.1993. The cost of the each shed was Rs. 3.96lacs. Plaintiff was required to pay rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month per shed for a period of two years and thereafter the sheds were to be converted into hire- purchase basis. Possession of the sheds was handed over to the plaintiff. The necessary formalities were completed between the parties. Plaintiff, admittedly, defaulted in making payment of rent from August, 1993 to March, 1995. Plaintiff enquired about the details of the interest demanded by defendant No. 2. However, the same were not supplied to the plaintiff by the defendants. The defendants sent various reminders to the plaintiff to pay the arrears of rent. The rate of interest calculated by the defendants on the delayed payment was not specified in any of the demand notices and as such the plaintiff could not challenge the rate of interest. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, both the courts below have highly R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -6- held that since the rate of interest was not informed to the plaintiff, the order of resumption dated 30.11.1995 was liable to be set aside. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the entire amount demanded by defendant No.2, within one month from the date the details of interest was supplied to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff deposited the entire amount within the requisite period. Plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum vide draft dated 24.3.2008. Thus, substantial justice had been done between the parties. Since the plaintiff had already deposited the amount due with the defendants, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
No substantial question of Law arises in the appeal for consideration. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE 09.10.2009 paramjit