Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vipin Kumar Jain vs Surinder Singh on 23 March, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 221 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 221 of 2010
Date of Decision : March 23, 2011
Vipin Kumar Jain .... Appellant
Vs.
Surinder Singh .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Plaintiff Vipin Kumar Jain having partly succeeded in the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.
Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against defendant-respondent Surinder Singh for recovery of Rs.35,500/- alleging that the defendant was tenant in the disputed shop under the plaintiff at Rs.500/- per month rent, but did not pay rent since 01.07.2000 onwards till 02.06.2006, when the shop was got vacated in execution of ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. Accordingly, rent amount of Rs.35,500/- for 71 months has been claimed in the suit.
R. S. A. No. 221 of 2010 2
The defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala Cantt, vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.17,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. In first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.2009, modified the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of rent amount for 36 months (immediately preceding the filing of suit) @ Rs.500/- per month i.e. total amount of Rs.18,000/- with pendente lite and future interest as granted by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
From the plaintiff's ex-parte evidence, it stands established that defendant had not paid rent since 01.07.2000 till 02.06.2006. However, plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent exceeding the period of three years immediately preceding the filing of suit was time barred and has been rightly held to be so by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that limitation period commenced to run when Rent Controller, vide order dated 26.08.2004, ordered ejectment of the defendant holding the arrears of rent to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff since 01.07.2000 onwards, and computed from the date of said ejectment order, the suit is R. S. A. No. 221 of 2010 3 within limitation qua the entire period of arrears of rent. The contention cannot be accepted. Limitation began to run when the defendant started committing default in payment of rent. Limitation period for recovery of rent of each month commenced when rent for the said month became due. Ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller did not furnish the starting point of limitation. Simultaneously, with the filing of the ejectment petition, the plaintiff could also file suit for recovery of arrears of rent, which had remained unpaid. However, the plaintiff did not do so. Courts below have rightly held the suit to be time barred for arrears of rent exceeding three years immediately preceding the filing of the suit. There is no illegality or perversity in the aforesaid finding of the courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
March 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE