Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Kaur & Ors. vs Preneet Chattha And Anr on 2 April, 2026
RSA-1136-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
131 RSA-1136-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.04.2026
Dalbir Kaur and others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Preneet Chattha and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate
for the appellants.
******
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for recovery of Rs.40,64,130/- was partly decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019 for recovery of Rs.34,64,130/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.
2. Against the said judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019, two appeals were filed, the first being Civil Appeal No. 302 of 2019 filed by defendants No.2 and 3; and second Civil Appeal No. 344 of 2019 filed by defendant No.1. Both the said Civil Appeals were partly allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2026; whereby Trial Court decree was modified only to the DIVYANSHI 2026.04.07 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1136-2026 (O&M) -2- extent of interest i.e. interest of 9% per annum awarded by learned Trial Court, was reduced to 6% per annum.
3. Present Second Appeal has been filed by all the three defendants which emanates from Civil Appeal No. 302 of 2019.
4. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants to assail the impugned judgments and decrees is that the Id. Court below has gone wrong in allowing the claim of damages on the basis of report of engineer Satwant Singh, total amounting to Rs. 5,64,918/-. It is contended that the said engineer had never inspected the premises in presence of the appellants nor any notice was issued prior to inspection of the site. Further, as per the claim of the plaintiff the premises was left on 25.9.2015; whereas the report is dated 07.10.2015. There is no evidence as to who had made any damages in the premises. Furthermore, apart from the solitary report of the said engineer who has been paid Rs. 15,000/- for preparing the said report, there is no other document in the form of the expenses incurred by the complainant in constructions etc. which has been placed on record in order to prove the claim of damage. Further it is claimed by the respondent No.1 & 2 that immediately after the premises was vacated a DDR was registered. The DDR though mentioned that the tenants abandoned the premises and did not pay the rent, however, it does not mention about the damage which has been allegedly caused upon the premises and as such it can be safely said that it is an afterthought. However, the ld. Court below has gone ahead in allowing the claim in toto.
DIVYANSHI2026.04.07 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1136-2026 (O&M) -3-
5. It is accordingly prayed that the appeal be accepted and the Judgment dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, U.T. Chandigarh, thereby ordering for the decree of the Suit filed by the plaintiffs and the judgment dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge Chandigarh whereby the appeal filed by the appellant No.1 & 2 is partly allowed, be set aside in the interest of justice.
6. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants.
7. The record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs/respondent that the Plaintiffs are owners and landlords of SCO No. 1028-1029, Sector 22-B Chandigarh. First and second Floors of the said SCO were let out to defendants/appellants through lease Deed dated 14.10.2010 (Ex.P2) initially for a period of 9 years from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2019. Monthly Rent was fixed as Rs.2 lacs which was to be increased by 5%, every year. Defendants had paid rent from 01.10.12 to 30.09.2013 @ Rs.2,20,500/-p.m.; and from 01.10.2013 to 31.7.2014 @Rs.2,31,525/-p.m.; and from 01.08.2014, defendants stopped making payment of Rent. Plaintiffs filed Rent petition for Eviction of defendants. However, during proceedings, defendants abandoned demised premises and plaintiffs have put their own locks on 25.09.2015. DDR No. 33 dated 25.09.2015 was registered in Police Station, Sector 17 Chandigarh. It was alleged that Defendants had vacated the premises without paying Rent @Rs.2,31,525/-p.m. from 01.8.2014 to 30.09.2015; and Rs.2,43,102/- p.m. DIVYANSHI 2026.04.07 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1136-2026 (O&M) -4- from 1.10.2014 to 30.9.2015; AND without paying Electricity, water Bills etc. Eviction petition was withdrawn by plaintiffs. It was further alleged that Defendants had also damaged building of plaintiffs. Engineer Satwant (Building Expert) vide report dated 7.11.2015 has given estimate of Rs.5,64,918/- to be paid by defendants for the damaged caused. Hence present suit for recovery was filed on 19.01.2016.
8. Upon appraisal of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Trial Court had decreed suit of the plaintiffs with costs vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019; and plaintiffs were held entitled to recover Rs.34,64,130/- from defendants along with 9% p.a. interest.
9. As noted above, two Civil Appeals were filed being: (1) CA- 302-2019 filed by defendants No. 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree Deere dated 05.9.2019; and (2) CA-344-2019 filed by Defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2026 both the above said appeals were allowed partly with respect to interest pendente lite and future interest; and plaintiffs were held entitled to interest @6% p.a. on Rs.34,64,130/-.
10. Onus was on defendants to prove that they had made payment of rent. However, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that they paid rent. It is to be noted that the Defendant No.1 while appearing as DW1 has admitted that he does not have any document or record to show that he had paid rent from 01.8.2014 onwards. DW1 also stated that he had paid electricity and water Bill till DIVYANSHI 2026.04.07 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1136-2026 (O&M) -5- October 2015. But he failed to produce receipt of payment of water and Electricity Bills.
11. With regard to damage to the building, the Contention of the defendants that plaintiffs have not placed on record any clear and cogent evidence to show that defendants have damaged property, does not hold much water as plaintiffs have examined PW2 Satwant Singh Engineer and Valuer who has inspected the suit property and given his Report Ex.PW2/A. Report Ex.PW2/A is a valid Report, as per which estimate for upkeep premises was calculated to be Rs.5,64,918/-. No evidence in rebuttal was led by the appellants.
12. It is further to be noted that PW2 has also placed on record photos Ex.P10 to Ex.P10/W. It is imperative to note that DW1 has identified the said photos to be the photos of demised premises and also deposed that photos are of same time when he had left the premises. Thus, contention of the appellant that they were not associated with the inspection, is without merit. Moreover, no evidence in rebuttal was led by the defendants on this Report. Rather they have admitted the photos to be of the suit property. No Evidence was placed on record by defendants showing that no damage was caused to the suit property when they had vacated the premises on 25.9.2015. Thus, defendants were unable to prove the status of the demised premises when they had left the premises.
13. Moreover, Disclosure of damage caused to building in DDR was not mandatory as main concern of plaintiffs was to bring to Notice of DIVYANSHI 2026.04.07 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1136-2026 (O&M) -6- Police that defendants have abandoned possession without informing. Plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted having received amount of Rs.6 lakhs as security from defendants. The record for the reveals that there was no contractual rate of interest agreed upon between the parties. Thus, as per Section 34 of CPC, plaintiffs were held entitled to get interest pendente lite and future @6% P.A. Further , since suit property was taken jointly by all defendants, so all the defendants were correctly held to be jointly and severally liable to pay.
14. Ld. Counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the above said facts and findings. It is also relevant to note that nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court by the appellants that any second appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 344 of 2019.
15. In view of the above, present Second Appeal stands dismissed.
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
02.04.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.04.07 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document