R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: 9.10.2009
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation
--Appellant
Vs.
Pushpinder Singh
-Respondent
Coream: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Sabina J.
Plaintiff- Pushpinder Singh had filed a suit for declaration.
Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panchkula, Haryana vide judgment
and decreed dated 29.2.2008 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
Aggrieved by the same defendants had filed an appeal. Additional District
Judge, Panchkula, had dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree
dated 10.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.
Brief facts of the case as noticed by learned Additional District
Judge, in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment are as under:-
“2.Sans verbiage, the facts of this case are that the plaintiff
was proprietor of M/s Auto Links and Ancillary to M/s
Hindustan Machine Tools, Pinjore, Initially, shed No. 243 was
allotted to the plaintiff on – but the said allotment was
cancelled before delivery of possession and a sum of Rs.
21,702/- paid by the plaintiff was returned to him.
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -2-Thereafter, defendant No. 2 allotted sheds No. 443 and 444,
Industrial Area, Panchkula to the plaintiff’s company at a cost
of Rs. 3,96,000/- for each shed on 26.06.1991. It was alleged
by the plaintiff that this price was higher than the prevailing
price of Rs. 2.85,000/- each but the plaintiff accepted the
allotment in view of threat of cancellation of business given by
Director of Industries, Haryana. Possession of the sheds was
given to the plaintiff on 2.8.1993. It was agreed that the
plaintiff would pay rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month for each shed
for a period of two years and would continue to be a tenant for
two years and thereafter payment made by him would be
converted into price of the sheds under hire-purchase
agreement. It was pleaded that the plaintiff made payment of
Rs. 1,63,602/- between 2.11.1987 and 21.06.1994.
3. It was further pleaded that tenancy period of the plaintiff
was from 2.8.1993 to 1.8.1995 and that agreed rent of Rs.
3000/- was Rs. 1,44,200/- for both the sheds whereas the
plaintiffs had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,63,602/- which was
in excess of the agreed price and therefore, the plaintiff was
entitled to recover Rs. 19,402/-. The plaintiff further pleaded
that defendant No. 2 charged interest @ 23% per annum on the
said amount, that the plaintiff claimed Rs, 1.08,000/- as rent for
the period from August, 1993 to 31.3.1995 and Rs. 1,30,500/-
as interest, that the plaintiff was already made payment but
defendant No. 2 wrongly, resumed the sheds. The plaintiff
challenged the resumption order as illegal, null and void. It
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -3-was pleaded that the defendants were requested to admit claim
of the plaintiff and cancel resumption but on their failure to do
so he filled the present suit.
4. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement and opposed the
suit questioning it maintainability, disputing cause of action
and locus standi in favour of the plaintiff and pleaded
concealment of true and material facts. On merits, defendant
No. 2 admitted allotment of sheds No. 443, 444 to the plaintiff
on 26.6.1993 @ Rs. 3.96 lacs each on the terms and condition
given in the allotment letter; that the plaintiff was required to
deposit a sum of Rs. 80,000/- 5towards costs of the sheds
before taking possession and to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/-
as earnest money and also pay Rs. 3000/- per month per shed
for two years. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had represented
for adjustment of amount of Rs. 19,900/- which was due from
the previous allottees and that the said request of the plaintiff
was consideration and decision was conveyed to the plaintiff
on 21.9.1993. Defendant No. 2 denied payment of Rs.
1,63,602/- by the plaintiff and asserted that a sum of Rs.
1.22.000/- only was paid by him towards earnest money and
that a sum of Rs. 6,94,255/- was still outstanding against him
as on 31.5.1995 made up of as under:-
Cost of two sheds @ Rs. 3.96lacs per shed – 7,92,000/-
Earnest money received -1,22,000/-
______________
6,70,000/-
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -4-
Interest on outstanding rent - 24,255/-
Upto 31.5.1995
___________________-
6,94,255/-
5. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that several reminders and
notices were issued to the plaintiff but he failed to pay the
outstanding amount, that he owed Rs. 1,08,000/- as arrears of
rent for the period from August, 1993 to 31.3.1995. It was
further pleaded that agreement was voluntarily executed
between the parties on 21.7.1993 and therefore, the plaintiff
was bound by terms and conditions of the said agreement.
Defendant No. 2 counter asserted the resumption order to be
legal and valid. Defendant No. 2 denied entire claim of the
plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.”
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the
trial court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has paid rent @ Rs. 3000/- p.m. for
the sheds bearing No. 443 and 444, Industrial Area, Panchkula?
OPP
2. If issue no. 1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff then
whether the claim of defendant No. 2 for Rs. 1,08,000/- from
9/93 to 31.3.1995 and Rs. 1,30,500/- as interest thereupon and
further documentation in regard to the sheds in question is null
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -5-and void? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material
facts from the court? OPD
6. Relief.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion
that the present appeal is devoid of any merit.
Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the defendants be
restrained from cancelling/resuming the sheds in question. Admittedly, two
shed were allotted by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff vide letter
dated 31.6.1993. The cost of the each shed was Rs. 3.96lacs. Plaintiff was
required to pay rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month per shed for a period of two
years and thereafter the sheds were to be converted into hire- purchase
basis. Possession of the sheds was handed over to the plaintiff. The
necessary formalities were completed between the parties. Plaintiff,
admittedly, defaulted in making payment of rent from August, 1993 to
March, 1995. Plaintiff enquired about the details of the interest demanded
by defendant No. 2. However, the same were not supplied to the plaintiff
by the defendants. The defendants sent various reminders to the plaintiff to
pay the arrears of rent. The rate of interest calculated by the defendants on
the delayed payment was not specified in any of the demand notices and as
such the plaintiff could not challenge the rate of interest. After appreciating
the evidence led by the parties on record, both the courts below have highly
R.S.A.No. 3612 of 2009(O&M) -6-
held that since the rate of interest was not informed to the plaintiff, the
order of resumption dated 30.11.1995 was liable to be set aside. The
plaintiff was directed to deposit the entire amount demanded by defendant
No.2, within one month from the date the details of interest was supplied
to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff deposited the entire amount within
the requisite period. Plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs along
with interest at the rate of 10% per annum vide draft dated 24.3.2008. Thus,
substantial justice had been done between the parties. Since the plaintiff
had already deposited the amount due with the defendants, no ground for
interference by this Court is made out.
No substantial question of Law arises in the appeal for
consideration. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
09.10.2009
paramjit