JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from industrial shed situated in Industrial Area, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, and for the recovery of Rs. 1,12.903/- as arrears of damages/mesne profits for illegal and unauthorised occupation of the premises by the defendant w.e.f, 1.5.19929 with a further prayer to grant damages from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree. Suit was filed on the premises that the building in question is exempt from the purview of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) and the exemption period of five years had not elapsed from the date of grant of sewerage connection till the filing of the suit. After notice terminating the tenancy, the possession of the defendant was illegal and the plaintiff was entitled to damages/ mesne profits at the market rate i.e. at the rate of Rs. 35000/ per month w.e.f. 1.5.1992.
2. Suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the premises is not exempted from the provisions of the Act as it was rented out in June 1987 and the suit had been filed after the expiry of five years from that date. It was also pleaded that sewerage connection was granted to the premises in question on 13.3.1987 and the suit having been filed after the expiry of five years from the date of grant of sewerage connection, it was not maintainable.
3. The defendant further pleaded that he was the statutory tenant and, therefore, not liable to be evicted from the premises in question and his possession was not illegal or unauthorised. Trial court after considering the evidence brought on record, by judgment and decree dated 17.8.1995, decreed the suit. However, the trial court granted three months time to the defendant to hand over the vacant possession. The suit was also decreed for the recovery of damages which were ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs. 10,500/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.1993 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
4. Plaintiff as also the defendant felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court and consequently, both filed appeals which have been disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 27.1.1997 by learned District Judge, Chandigarh.
5. Claim of the plaintiff before the first appellate court was that he was entitled to damages at a higher rate than the one granted by the trial court whereas the grievance of the defendant was that decree for ejectment passed by the trial court was wrong and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
6. During the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh, the defendant moved two applications one Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the original register containing entry Exhibit PW.4/2 pertaining to the grant of sewerage connection and the second under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to prove the rent note dated 3.6.1987. The latter application was dismissed by learned District Judge for the reasons as detailed in his judgment dated 27.1.1997 and it is not necessary to elaborate on this aspect as no arguments were addressed in that behalf during the course of hearing in this appeal. The original register relating to grant of sewerage connection was, however, summoned and examined by learned District Judge.
7. Learned District Judge after appreciating the evidence led in the case and also having perused the entries in the original register, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-tenant and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned District Judge consequently modified the finding returned by the trial court under issue No. 3 to the extent that market rent of the demised premises is Rs. 20,000/- per month and the tenant was, therefore, liable to pay the damages at that rate instead at the rate of Rs. 10,500/- per month as granted by the trial court. It is in this situation, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant.
8. While I was in the process of issuing notice of motion, Mr. Ravinder Chopra, Advocate accepted notice of motion on behalf of the plaintiff, respondent and submitted that he was prepared with the case and arguments may be heard and the appeal disposed of at this stage itself, to which learned counsel for the appellant had no objection.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendant-appellant was inducted as a tenant w.e.f. 3.6.1987 and the sewerage connection was granted on 13.3.1987 and thus the suit filed on, 7.8,1992 was not maintainable as the exemption of five years granted under the provisions of the Act ceased to be operative in respect of the, premises in question. In order to buttress his argument learned counsel referred to Rules 18 and 112 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules 1952 (for short ‘the Rules’). Rule 18 of the Rules relating to permission to occupy a building, provides that no person shall occupy a new building without obtaining permission in Form-F appended to the Rules and where permission to occupy a part of the building has already been given separate permission shall be necessary for occupation of such other parts as may be subsequently completed. Rule 112 of the Rules provides that no connection of any drain to any sewer or storm water drain shall be made or shall any water-borne sanitary or drainage installation or any part thereof be taken into use until and unless a certificate has been issued by the Chief Administrator that the said water-borne sanitary or drainage installation as a whole, has been satisfactorily completed-and that such connection to a sewer or a storm water drain shall be made by officers duly authorised by the Chief Administrator. The application for the connection shall be accompanied by a copy of the said certificate and the deposit of such sum of money as the Chief Administrator may demand based on current schedule of rates to meet the cost of the connection before the connection is made. In the present case, there is no dispute that the sanction for the sewerage connection was granted on 13.3.1987 and the suit was filed on 7.8.1992. The precise dispute seems to be whether the date of sanction to grant the sewerage connection viz. 13.3.1987 or the date of actual connection of sanitary installation with the main sewer pipe, by the authorities is to be taken the date for the purpose of exemption period of five years provided under the Act. There is no dispute that the authorities maintain a register indicating the actual date of connection of sanitary installation in the premises with main sewer line or the storm water line. Learned District Judge after having examined the entries contained in the original register produced at the hearing noticed that in many cases the actual sewer connection was granted to the owner of the building after a lapse of many months of the date of sanction. In the present case, sanction was granted on 13.3.1987 and the sanitary installation was actually connected with the main sewer line on 17.8.1987. In this context, learned District Judge after going through the notifications issued by the Chandigarh Administration from time to time came to the conclusion that in fact it is the date of actual connection and not the date of sanction which is relevant for the purpose of determining the period of exemption of five years. He consequently came to the conclusion that the suit was filed on 7.8.1992 i.e. well within a period of five years from the date of actual sewerage granted to the plaintiff in respect of the premises in question. On a consideration of the matter, I agree with the view of learned District Judge and find that the words “from the date of sewerage connection is granted in respect of such building” used in the notification issued Under Section 3 of the Act deserves to be interpreted to mean the date when the actual physical sewerage connection is provided and not the date of grant of paper sanction of the sewerage connection. Obviously, the sanitary installation in a building is connected with the main lines after the grant of sanction and the authorities have maintained a register date-wise, indicating the date of actual connection of sanitary installation in respect of the main sewerage connection. In the present case as already noticed, sanitary installation in the premises in question were actually connected on 18.8.1987 and, therefore in my opinion, no exception can be taken to the view of learned District Judge. The finding in that behalf is, therefore, affirmed.
10. Rule 18 of the Rules referred to by learned counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of this case as in some cases the permission to occupy can be had even in the absence of sewerage connection and in any case, permission to occupy a building has nothing to do with the grant of sewerage connection. In case the grant of sewerage connection had been a pre-condition for the grant of permission to occupy, then perhaps the wording of Rule 18 aforesaid would have been in a different form and it would have been provided in Rule 18 itself that permission to occupy shall be granted only after actual connection of sanitary installation with the main sewer line is made and as a consequence thereof, the words of the notification issued Under Section 3 of the Act would also have been different and in that notification, instead of indicating the date of sewerage connection, the date of grant of Permission to occupy would have been there. From the fact that the authorities mentioned the word “grant of sewerage connection” in the notification, goes to show that occupation of the building has no relevance to the period of exemption and in fact it is the date of granting the sewerage connection which is the relevant date for the purpose of exemption. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant cannot draw any assistance from the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules.
11. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that entry No. 109 appearing in the register relating to grant of sewerage connection has been interpolated in this case and, therefore, no reliance can be placed thereon. This matter again has been discussed elaborately by the learned District Judge and he has rejected this contention for the reasons detailed in his judgment. I have also considered this contention and find that sewerage connection was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on 13.3.1987 and the same was shown to have been actually granted on 13.8.1987 and entry No. 109 appears in that behalf in the register. Though entry No. 109 earlier pertained to one Naginder Singh but it was deleted and instead against entry No. 109, sewerage connection was indicated to have been granted to the plaintiff-respondent on 12.8.1987. Sewerage connection to Naginder Singh is shown to have been granted against entry No. 112 and learned counsel for the appellant with reference to entries in the register was unable to show that the plaintiff had earlier been granted connection and the entry in that behalf had been made in the register on any date beginning from 13.3.1987 to 18.8.1987 and consequently entry No. 109 was a duplicate entry or that there existed no entry relating to Naginder Singh thereafter or on a earlier date and, therefore, entry No. 109 was made relating to the premises in question after making a cutting in the register. This apart, learned District Judge has noticed that there are some cuttings in the register and merely on this ground, no doubt can be had on the authenticity of the register which has been kept and maintained in the normal course of business by the officials of the Union Territory. Thus, I again find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. The mere fact that the date of sewerage connection had not been indicated by the plaintiff while filing the suit and he indicated that date only in the replication, makes no difference as the plaintiff was only to show that the suit had been filed within the period of exemption as notified Under Section 3 of the Act. The decree for ejectment is thus affirmed.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that learned District Judge was not right in coming to the conclusion that the market rent of the demised premises was Rs. 20,000/- per month and thereby modifying the finding recorded by the trial court. Learned counsel in that behalf referred to the statement of the defendant who only stated that the rent of the demised premises varied from Rs, 12,000/to Rs. 15,000/- and that too, in the year 1995 when he made the statement in court. It was thus submitted that learned District Judge was not right in concluding that the market rate was Rs. 20,000/- per month in the year 1992 or 1993.
13. On a consideration of the matter, I find force in the contention. There is no definite evidence that has come on record to conclude that actual market rent in the year 1992 i.e. on the date when tenancy stood terminated, was Rs. 20,000/- per month or more though some vague statements have been made by the parties regarding rate of rent prevailing in the locality in respect of similar premises. From the statement of the defendant who appeared as his own witness in court, it cannot be concluded that the rate of rent was Rs. 15,000/- or more of the premises like the one in dispute in the year 1992 when the suit was filed. The defendant only stated when he appeared as a witness long after the filing of the suit that the rate of rent varied between Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. This obviously meant that this was the rate prevailing during the year in which he appeared as a witness. Thus in view of the above discussions, I am inclined to accept the contention and consequently set aside that part of the judgment and decree under appeal and restore that of the trial court in-so-far as the question of rate of market rent of the premises in dispute is concerned. In the situation, the Plaintiff shall now be entitled to receive only Rs. 10,500/- per month by way of damages from the defendant w.e.f. the due date alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum till such time the defendant vacates and hand over the possession thereof to the land-owner.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant in the end submitted that in the event of the appeal being dismissed, the defendant-appellant may be granted three months’ time to vacate the premises. On a consideration of the matter, I find that the request is reasonable and the same is granted subject to defendant’s filing an undertaking within one month from today before the executing court to the effect that he shall immediately on the expiry of three months hand over actual physical possession of the premises in question to the landlord or his authorised nominee and further subject to his paying against proper receipt or depositing in court the arrears of rent/damage at the rate of Rs. 10,500/- per month within one month. In case the undertaking as aforesaid is not filed or the arrears of damages are not paid/deposited within the time indicated above, the concession granted herein regarding granting time to vacate the premises shall automatically stand withdrawn.
15. As a sequel of the above, the judgment and decree for ejectment passed by the courts below is affirmed but the decree passed by learned District Judge regarding mesne profits is modified in the terms indicated above. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.