ASHOK KUMAR VAID Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is, that Late Mohan Lal Goel, was the owner and in possession of the house bearing No. 254, Sector 9, Panchkula. He executed a lease deed and let out the same to Ashok Kumar Vaid and Mrs.Neeru Vaid-appellant- defendants(hereinafter to be referred as "the defendants") on monthly rent of Rs. 1400/-. The said lease was stated to be for a period of 11 months and it was stipulated that if the lease is extended beyond 11 months, then the rent is to be enhanced @ 10% per annum. After the death of Mohan Lal Goel, Mohinder Kumar Goel-respondent-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff") and his brother Ashok Kumar Goel inherited and became the owner of the demised premises.

(2.) As the defendants failed to pay the agreed rent, therefore, the plaintiff filed a petition for eviction of the defendants, on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The petition was allowed, ejectment order was passed and the Rent Controller directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 35,928/- vide order dated 05.09.2006. The appeal filed by the defendants against the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by way of order dated 28.03.2007. However, The appeal filed by the plaintiff for modification was allowed and ultimately, the Appellate Authority directed the defendants to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs. 1,45,861/-. The revision petition filed by the defendants was also dismissed by this Court by means of order dated 27.04.2007.

(3.) As the defendants did not pay the amount of arrears of rent, despite the ejectment order, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery. The case set-up by the plaintiff, in brief, insofar as relevant was, that although the defendants remained unsuccessful upto the High Court, but they did not comply with the original order of the Rent Controller. They did not vacate and remained in possession of the demised premises upto 25.06.2007, without payment of any rent and water charges. Thus, the defendants were stated to be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,61,804/- along with interest w.e.f. November 1999 to June 2007. The plaintiff requested the defendants to pay the amount, but in vain, which necessitated him to file the present suit for recovery against the defendants. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, interest and cost etc. to the extent of Rs. 1,61,804/- against the defendants, in the manner described hereinabove.