RAM CHANDER Vs. RAJWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against decrees passed by the Courts whereby the appellant has been fastened with liability to pay rent at the rate of Rs.6000.00 per month from March 2008 to 31/12/2010 i.e. for a period of 34 months with interest. Admittedly, the appellant was a tenant and tenancy was created by mother of respondent. On death of mother of the respondent, respondent became landlord qua the appellant. There was a compromise arrived at between the parties during pendency of suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant and as per compromise, the appellant agreed to vacate the tenanted premises on 31/12/2010.

(2.) The plea of respondent is that the shop was vacated in the month of February 2011. However, arrears of rent were claimed w.e.f. 1/9/2007 to 31/12/2010. The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1/9/2007 to 31/12/2010 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1/9/2007 to 31/12/2010 and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1/1/2011 till realization. The judgment anddecree passed by the trial Court were modified in appeal and the respondent was held entitle to arrears of rent from March 2008 to 31/12/2010 along with interest.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has assailed his liability to pay arrears of rent aforesaid primarily on two counts. It is argued that the appellant filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from creating any kind of hindrance in using the shop, bathroom, latrine, hand-pump etc. in May 2010 and copy of the plaint is Ex.PX. In para 5 of the plaint, a specific plea was raised that the appellant cleared the rent upto 31/5/2010. It was also averred that Ranjit Kaur died about 1 1 1/2 years and after her death, the respondent is receiving rent and never issued any receipt. The said dispute between the parties was settled by way of compromise dtd. 24/5/2010 whereby the appellant agreed to vacate the premises upto 31/12/2010 and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 29/5/2010. It is vehemently argued that while entering into compromise on 24/5/2010, the respondent never raised an issue that the appellant is in arrears of rent much less w.e.f. 1/9/2007 but the Courts have failed to appreciate the documents in respect of earlier litigation, in right perspective, thus, committed illegality.