PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.2.1999 whereby the suit of the respondent No.1/co-owner has been decreed for arrears of rent being the difference between Rs.12,500/- (rate at which rent was paid) and Rs.14,000/- (the rate at which rent was actually due) from 1.6.1982 to 30.11.1987, the latter date being the date when the appellant/tenant vacated the suit premises.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that there were disputes and difference between the co-owners of the property bearing No.126, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi, being one Smt. Laxmi Devi (who is now represented by the respondent No.2 Smt. Prabjhot Singh Kochhar) and Gurmukh Singh (the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1(a) and 1(b)). During the pendency of a suit for partition in this Court between the co-owners a receiver of the property was appointed and which receiver let out the property originally in the year 1975 to the appellant bank under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the RS.said Act'). THE appellant bank pursuant to various extensions continued to stay in the property and the last of such extensions which was granted under Section 21 of the said Act is dated 17.11.1983. It is not disputed that this order which was passed on 17.11.1983 under Section 21 of the said Act was a consent order to which the appellant bank was a party. In fact, this order of granting of lease under Section 21 was pursuant to the order dated 29.10.1982 of this Court in the partition suit whereby the property was permitted to be let out at Rs.14,000/- per month.

(3.) IT has been argued for the respondent No.1/co-landlord that the claim in the trial Court was not a claim for the rent for the period of three years back from 29.3.1989. What was pleaded was that the respondent No.1/landlord adjusted all amounts received @ Rs.12,500/- per month towards total due of Rs.14,000/- per month, the agreed figure of rent and the amount claimed is the rent due for the months for which rent will then remain due. As a result of the adjustment, there were arrears due being approximately seven months rent in November, 1987 when the appellant/tenant/bank vacated the suit premises. As already stated the respondent No.1 claimed instead of Rs.1500/- per month the sum calculated at Rs.750/- per month because he was only a 50% owner of the suit premises. When a sum of Rs.14,000/- is multiplied for a period of 66 months i.e. from 1.6.1982 to 30.11.1987 the dues towards the rent would be Rs.9,24,000/-. The payment, however, was made @ Rs.12,500/- totaling to Rs.8,25,000/-. The difference of Rs.9,24,000/- and Rs.8,25,000/- is Rs.99,000/- and which would be the arrears of rent taking the rent @ Rs.14,000/- per month for approximately seven months plus a sum of Rs.1,000/-.