RSA-283-2000 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-283-2000 (O&M) Food Corpora"on of India ...Appellant Versus Mange Ram ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, and Ms. Chetna Rao, Advocates, for the respondent. **** Reserved on: 15.01.2026 Pronounced on: 20.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera"ve part: Fully DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant– Food Corpora4on of India assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plain4ff for recovery of ₹2,48,622.36/- on account of unpaid differen4al rent was decreed. The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree on merits and modified only the rate of interest. 2. The founda4onal facts are largely undisputed. The godown owned by the plain4ff was taken on lease by the defendant-Corpora4on in the year 1980 at the rate of 44 paise per square feet per month. The agreed lease period expired on 28.10.1986. Admi@edly, however, the defendant con4nued in possession of the godown 4ll 31.03.1989. 3. The plain4ff asserted that prior to the expiry of the lease period, nego4a4ons were held between the par4es, pursuant to which the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.20 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-283-2000 (O&M) [2] rent was enhanced to 59 paise per square feet per month with effect from 28.10.1986. Despite such enhancement, the defendant con4nued to pay rent at the old rate, resul4ng in accrual of arrears, which formed the subject ma@er of the suit. 4. The defendant resisted the claim primarily on the ground that no concluded contract for enhancement of rent had come into existence, par4cularly in the absence of a formal wri@en agreement, and that internal departmental correspondence could not amount to acceptance. 5. Both the Courts below, upon apprecia4on of the material evidence, concurrently found that the enhancement of rent stood duly proved. 6. Heard Ld. Counsel for the par4es. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that the plain4ff led cogent oral and documentary evidence to establish the factum of nego4a4ons and enhancement. PW-1, an official of the defendant-Corpora4on, categorically deposed that the plain4ff was summoned for nego4a4ons prior to the expiry of the lease and that the competent authority had approved enhancement of rent to 59 paise per square feet per month with effect from 30.10.1986. His tes4mony remained unshaken in cross-examina4on. 8. The documentary evidence, par4cularly the contemporaneous correspondence exchanged between the Regional Office and Zonal Office of the defendant-Corpora4on, clearly reflects that the proposal for YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.20 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-283-2000 (O&M) [3] enhancement of rent was considered and approved by the competent authority. Le@ers dated 06.06.1987 (Ex.PX) and 03.08.1987 (Ex.PY) unmistakably record approval of the enhanced rent and con4nua4on of the godown at the revised rate. Though such correspondence was inter- departmental, it was duly proved through officials of the defendant itself and, therefore, cons4tutes relevant and admissible evidence. 9 On the other hand, the defendant failed to lead any posi4ve evidence to disprove the nego4a4ons or to establish that the plain4ff was ever informed that the enhancement proposal had been rejected. Mere sugges4ons in cross-examina4on or reliance upon internal delibera4ons regarding possible de-hiring of the godown do not negate the fact that approval of enhanced rent had already been accorded and acted upon. 10. The legal posi4on is well se@led. Under Sec4on 9 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract may be express or implied. Acceptance of an offer need not invariably be in wri4ng and may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances. In Sardar Gulab Singh v. Punjab Zamindara Bank Ltd., AIR (29) 1942 Lahore 47, it was held that a contract may be partly express and partly implied from the acts of the par4es. 11. Even in the case of Government or its instrumentali4es, the decisive factor is whether there was consensus ad idem on facts. The Supreme Court in Thawardas Pherumal & Another v. Union of India, AIR (29) 1955 SC 468, while emphasising the desirability of wri@en contracts with the Government, but did not lay down an absolute proposi4on that an oral or implied contract with the Government is impermissible in all YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.20 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-283-2000 (O&M) [4] circumstances. Whether the par4es intended to be bound only upon execu4on of a formal wri@en agreement is essen4ally a ques4on of fact. 12. Similarly, in Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd. v. L.A. Creet and others, AIR 1933 PC 29, it was held that where execu4on of a formal document is contemplated merely as a record of an already concluded bargain, absence of such document does not render the contract unenforceable. 13. Applying these principles to the present case, the Courts below rightly concluded that the approval of enhanced rent by the competent authority, coupled with con4nued occupa4on of the godown by the defendant aPer expiry of the lease, cons4tuted a concluded contract at the enhanced rate. 14. The objec4on based on Sec4on 107 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is also without merit. The present dispute does not concern enforcement of a lease for a term exceeding one year, but recovery of rent for the period during which the defendant admi@edly remained in possession. Upon expiry of the original lease, the defendant became a tenant holding over, and the rate of rent applicable during such period is a pure ques4on of fact, which has been concurrently determined on the basis of evidence. 15. The conten4on that acceptance of rent at the old rate dis- en4tled the plain4ff from claiming the enhanced rent is equally untenable. Mere acceptance of a lesser amount does not amount to waiver or estoppel, par4cularly when the plain4ff had consistently asserted his YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.20 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-283-2000 (O&M) [5] en4tlement to the enhanced rate. In this regard, reference may be made to Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another, AIR 1989 SC 1834, wherein the Supreme Court held that waiver must be inten4onal and unequivocal. 16. In second appeal, this Court does not sit as a court of re- apprecia4on of evidence. Interference with concurrent findings is permissible only where such findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence. 17. No perversity, illegality or substan4al ques4on of law has been demonstrated in the present case. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper apprecia4on of oral and documentary evidence and correct applica4on of se@led legal principles. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 20.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 20.01.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.20 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document