R.S.A. No. 1681 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 1681 of 2008
Date of decision: September 01, 2008
Harpal Singh and another
..Appellants
v.
Malkit Singh and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. S. K. Laddi, Advocate for
Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the appellants.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
The appellants- plaintiffs (hereinafter described as `the
plaintiffs’) are before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact by
both the Courts below whereby suit for possession filed by them was
dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for
possession of shop bearing property No. 4275, situated at Tajpur Chowk,
Raikot and for a direction to the respondents-defendants (hereinafter
described as `the defendants’) for handing over the vacant possession
thereof to the plaintiffs. Further prayer was for payment of mesne profits @
Rs. 6,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.2.2001.
As per the averments in the plaint, the shop was leased out to
the defendants for a period of five years from January, 1996. The rate of
rent was agreed to be paid @ Rs. 2,000/- per month, which was enhanced to
Rs. 2,200/- per month w.e.f. February, 1999. As per the terms of the
agreement, the shop was to be vacated on 31.1.2001 after the expiry of
tenancy.
The stand of the defendants was that the suit was not
maintainable as the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for
short, `the Transfer of Property Act’) were not applicable and the Civil
Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. As the
defendants claimed themselves to be the tenants, it was submitted that it will
R.S.A. No. 1681 of 2008 [2]
be the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for
short, `the Rent Act’) which shall be applicable.
On the issue as to whether the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act or the Rent Act would be applicable, the learned trial Court,
while interpreting the provisions of the lease deed, opined that it would be
the provisions of the Rent Act which shall be applicable and further that no
order regarding mesne profits could be passed under the Rent Act. The
view expressed by the learned trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate
Court holding that the plaintiffs could only invoke the provisions of the
Rent Act to claim the possession of the shop and the suit was not
maintainable.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs could not point out any
illegality in the judgments of the Courts below where, on interpretation of
the lease deed, it was opined that the same was in fact, a rent note where the
defendants were tenants in the premises in question. As the property was
situated within the municipal limits, it was opined that it was only the
provisions of the Rent Act which shall be applicable and not the Transfer of
Property Act.
The findings recorded by the Courts below are plain and
simple findings of fact on interpretation of the document in question which
do not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of
law.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
September 01, 2008.
mk