HARBHAJAN KAUR Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant Harbhajan Kaur filed the suit for possession of two shops and also for the realisation of Rs. 12,000/- as arrears of rent or, in the alternative, for damages for use and occupation from 1st February, 1972 to 30th April, 1973 @ Rs. 400/- per month and per shop and Rs. 450/-as interest. It was alleged that she was the owner of the shops in dispute and the same were constructed in the year 1971 but the defendants forcibly occupied the same in February, 1972 without her permission. The money orders sent by the defendants twice were refused by her. However, lateron the plaintiff accepted the defendants as tenants with effect from 1st February, 1972, for a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per shop and as the shops in question were constructed in 1971 the same were exempt from the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It was also claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of the suit till its realisation. In the Written Statement, it was pleaded inter-alia on behalf of the defendants that the suit as such was not maintainable as the shops in dispute were not exempt from the provisions of the Rent Act as there was no notification exempting the buildings constructed during the year 1971. It was further pleaded that the agreed rate of rent for both the shops was Rs. 330/- per month and not Rs. 400/-per month per shop as claimed by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues :--

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the agreed rate of rent between the parties was Rs. 800/- for both the shops and the finding of the Court that it was Rs 350/- per month for both the shops was wrong and illegal. This was the subject-matter of Issue No. 2 in the trial Court. The plaintiff in order to prove that the rent between the parties was Rs. 800/- per month produced PW-13 Gajjan Singh, PW-15 Pritam Singh and Gurcharan Singh PW-16 appeared as attorney for the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants were examined DW-1 Teja Singh, DW-8 Manmohan Singh, defendants and DW-4 Major Gurdip Singh, DW-5 Bant Singh, DW-6 K. L. Mehta and DW-7 Bishan Singh. All these witnesses have deposed that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 330/- p. m. The trial Court has also relied on the evidence that the property in dispute was assessed to house-tax in the year 1972-73 as stated by DW-2 Gopal Krishan Record-keeper of the Municipal Committee Ex. D-4 is the copy of the House-tax Assessment Register. In this, the two shops have been assessed at a rental value of Rs.110/- p. m. whereas the entire building has been assessed at Rs. 150/- p.m. However, in the year 1973-74 it appears that at the instance of the defendants the assessment was raised to Rs. 32S/- p. m. regarding these two shops.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the oral evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff has been ignored arbitrarily. After going through the entire evidence I do not find any merit in the contention. The plaintiff only produced oral evidence to prove that the agreed rent was Rs. 800/- p. m. Surprisingly enough, no evidence was produced to show that the shops in the neighbourhood, if any, were fetching that much rent whereas the defendants produced House-tax Assessment Register showing that the property was assessed at the rate of Rs. 110/- p. m. Moreover, the trial Court mainly relied on the affidavit of the defendant Ex P-52 dated 12th March, 1972 whereby it was admitted by Teja Singh defendant that the rate of rent was Rs. 350/- p. m. for both the shops. Thus, 1 do not find any illegality with the appreciation of the oral evidence by the trial Court. Thus, the finding of the trial Court under issue No. 2 that the rate of rent was Rs. 350/- p. m. affirmed.