DIAL SINGH Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgments, and decrees of the courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the present suit on the allegations that Punjab State through its employee defendant No. 2 took on lease his bungalow at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- beginning from 1.9.1973 to 31.8.1978, that is, for a period of five years. The terms of lease were stated to have been reduced into writing. The lease deed was executed and duly registered. It is stated in the lease deed that the defendants would not vacate the premises before 31.8.1978 and even if they were to vacate the premises, the plaintiffs' entitlement to recover the lease amount upto that period would not be affected. It is further stated that the defendants without prior notice to the plaintiff informed him that they would be vacating the house before 31.8.1975. Upon receipt of the information a notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants that the lease was for a period of five years and that the house could not be vacated on 31.8.1975. However, without paying any attention to the notice, the defendants vacated the premises on 31.8.1975. The defendants paid the rent only upto 31.1.1975 according to the plaintiff and, therefore, they were liable to pay the rent from 1.2.1975 upto 31.10.1975. The defendants took up the stand that service of notice by the plaintiff was not valid hence, the suit was not maintainable against defendant No. 2 who was the Chief Agricultural Officer; the agreement was not valid and legal and it was a nullity. It was further averred that defendant No. 2 was not authorised to make any agreement on behalf of the Governor of the State and no lease deed as alleged by the plaintiff was executed on behalf of defendant No. 1. The plea of fraud of obtaining signatures of defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff was also taken. While denying the averments made in the plaint, it was admitted that the rent was paid by the defendants upto 31.1.1975 and that rent upto 31.8.1975, that is, the date of vacation of the bungalow was due. It was the case of the defendants that since the premises was vacated on 31.8.1975 therefore, no rent could be recovered upto 31.10.1975. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(3.) THE plaintiff has been non-suited and I may hasten to observe on technical ground. This court is not convinced with the reasoning of the appellate court, which has been given for non-suiting the plaintiff. In my view, it is immaterial that the lease deed was got registered by the plaintiff in the absence of a person on behalf of the State Government. Once the lease deed was signed by defendant No. 2 on behalf of the Department, the absence of a person on behalf of the State Government at the time of registration would not make any difference. Whether the original lease deed was produced or the carbon copy is another finding which is not sustainable for the simple reason that once the defendants got into possession of the disputed property and had been paying rent for more than two years, they are estopped by their own act and conduct from challenging the lease deed. In fact on the basis of this reasoning, all the findings recorded by the courts below can be reversed. The present is not a case of the type where the defendants did not enjoy possession of the property. Not only the possession of the premises was handed over to the defendants but also the plaintiff had been getting payment of rent regularly until the time the dispute arose. Even if the Chief Agricultural Officer was not authorised or even if he had not signed, the defendants are bound by the terms of the lease deed under which they got into possession of the disputed property. In my view the doctrine of promissory estoppel comes into play and the defendants were bound to remain in occupation of the disputed property, as agreed, for a period of five years. The defendants must thank their stars that the plaintiff had instituted the suit at the earliest after the vacation of the premises and after complying with the legal formalities of 60 days' notice under Section 80 C.P.C. If the plaintiff had waited beyond two months the defendants would have been saddled with the liability uptil the time the plaintiff was to claim arrears of rent.