TEJINDER PAL SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) Plaintiff's case is that disputed shop No. 1 was leased out by Defendant Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar to the Plaintiff prior to the year 1979 at Rs. 800/- per month rent. Security amount of Rs. 9,600/- deposited by the Plaintiff is still lying deposited with the Defendant. The Plaintiff has paid the rent regularly since inception of tenancy at the agreed rate. However, the Defendant has issued notice dated 06.01.2005 demanding 1, 00,297/- from the Plaintiff as arrears of rent till 30.11.2004. The said demand has been challenged in the suit alleging it to be against principles of natural justice and therefore, illegal and null and void. The demand has been made on the basis of enhancement of rent @ 20% with retrospective effect, and therefore, demand is bad. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing the Defendant not to raise any demand for arrears of rent, as contained in the impugned notice dated 06.01.2005 and directing the Defendant to withdraw the said notice being illegal etc. and the Defendant is not entitled to recover the disputed amount or to enhance the rent nor the Plaintiff is under obligation to pay the same.

(3.) The Defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was denied that the disputed shop was ever given on lease to the Plaintiff by the Defendant prior to the year 1979. On the contrary, the shop was given on lease to Joginder Singh (Plaintiff's father) @ Rs. 800/- per month for five years in auction held on 22.11.1979. Joginder Singh took possession of the shop on 05.12.1979. The lease period was from 05.12.1979 to 04.12.1984. After expiry of said lease period, Joginder Singh requested for extension of lease period, which was extended for three years from 05.12.1984 to 04.12.1987 with 20% increase in lease money i.e. @ Rs. 960/- per month. Letter to this effect was sent to Joginder Singh. The licensee has not paid the lease money regularly on time. Deposit of security money is matter of record. Licensee has not paid the lease money at the agreed rate and the suit amount, being arrears of lease money, is yet to be deposited by the licensee. Various other pleas were also raised.