RSA No. 805 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Shalig Ram Ganga Devi CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Mr. J.S. Salooja, Advocate DEEPAK GUPTA, Suit for recovery of Rs.3,77,220/ occupation of tenanted premises @ Rs.6500/ filed by Smt. Ganga Devi (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 02.09.2019 and the appeal filed by defendant Shalig Ram (appellant herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate C concurrent findings, defendant to the case has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal. 2. It has been found by the Courts below that defendant was admittedly tenant under the plaintiff in the de month and was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2013. It is further admitted position that eviction petition (Ex.PW2/A) was filed on account of non of arrears of rent and passed by then Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby defendant was directed to make payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,12,000/ hearing i.e. 12.01.2017, but the defendant failed to make the payment of said of 2022 Page N: 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT RSA No. 805 of 2022(O&M) Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Versus CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate and Mr. J.S. Salooja, Advocate for the *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Suit for recovery of Rs.3,77,220/- tenanted premises @ Rs.6500/- filed by Smt. Ganga Devi (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 02.09.2019 and the appeal filed by defendant Shalig Ram (appellant herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 22.12.2021. Against the said concurrent findings, defendant to the case has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal. It has been found by the Courts below that defendant was admittedly tenant under the plaintiff in the de month and was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2013. It is further admitted position that eviction petition (Ex.PW2/A) was filed on account of non of arrears of rent and assessment order dated 13.12.20 passed by then Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby defendant was directed to make payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,12,000/ hearing i.e. 12.01.2017, but the defendant failed to make the payment of said IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH (O&M) Date of decision: 13.05.2025 …Appellant …Respondent DEEPAK GUPTA Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate and or the appellant. being arrears of rent for use and per month along with interest, filed by Smt. Ganga Devi (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 02.09.2019 and the appeal filed by defendant Shalig Ram (appellant herein) was ourt on 22.12.2021. Against the said concurrent findings, defendant to the case has approached this Court by way of It has been found by the Courts below that defendant was admittedly tenant under the plaintiff in the demised premises @ Rs.6500/- per month and was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2013. It is further admitted position that eviction petition (Ex.PW2/A) was filed on account of non-payment assessment order dated 13.12.2016 (Ex.PW2/C) wa passed by then Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby defendant was directed to make payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,12,000/- by the next date of hearing i.e. 12.01.2017, but the defendant failed to make the payment of said being arrears of rent for use and as filed by Smt. Ganga Devi (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 02.09.2019 and the appeal filed by defendant Shalig Ram (appellant herein) was ourt on 22.12.2021. Against the said concurrent findings, defendant to the case has approached this Court by way of It has been found by the Courts below that defendant was per month and was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2013. It is further admitted payment 6 (Ex.PW2/C) was passed by then Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby defendant was directed to by the next date of hearing i.e. 12.01.2017, but the defendant failed to make the payment of said JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 805 of arrears on the next by the Rent Controller. 3. It is also not disputed that pursuant to the said eviction order, plaintiff obtained possession of the demised property through Court orders in April, 2017. Neither t by the defendant Courts below thus found that defendant remained in possession of the demised premises w.e.f. 01.01.2013 till April 2017 and Rs.6500/- per month, during this period. 4. The contention was raised by defendant raised some construction on the demised property and that the plaintiff had undertaken to forego the arrears of r raising the construction. The Courts below rejected this contention by observing that there was specific condition in lease agreement (Ex.D2) executed between the parties that the lessee should not carry out any alt type in the building structure without prior consent of the lessor. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the Courts below which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence hereby dismissed. 13.05.2025 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of 2022 Page N: 2 of 2 arrears on the next date of hearing and so eviction order (Ex.PW2/D) was passed by the Rent Controller. It is also not disputed that pursuant to the said eviction order, plaintiff obtained possession of the demised property through Court orders in April, 2017. Neither the assessment order nor the eviction order were assailed by the defendant-appellant and as such the same had attained finality. The Courts below thus found that defendant remained in possession of the demised premises w.e.f. 01.01.2013 till April 2017 and had not paid the arrears of rent @ per month, during this period. The contention was raised by defendant raised some construction on the demised property and that the plaintiff had undertaken to forego the arrears of rent as defendant had spent the amount in raising the construction. The Courts below rejected this contention by observing that there was specific condition in lease agreement (Ex.D2) executed between the parties that the lessee should not carry out any alt type in the building structure without prior consent of the lessor. Learned counsel for the appellant this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings of facts by the Courts below which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence. As such, present appeal being devoid of any merits hereby dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No date of hearing and so eviction order (Ex.PW2/D) was passed It is also not disputed that pursuant to the said eviction order, plaintiff obtained possession of the demised property through Court orders in he assessment order nor the eviction order were assailed appellant and as such the same had attained finality. The Courts below thus found that defendant remained in possession of the demised had not paid the arrears of rent @ The contention was raised by defendant-appellant that he had raised some construction on the demised property and that the plaintiff had ent as defendant had spent the amount in raising the construction. The Courts below rejected this contention by observing that there was specific condition in lease agreement (Ex.D2) executed between the parties that the lessee should not carry out any alteration or addition of any type in the building structure without prior consent of the lessor. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant could not convince this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings of facts by the Courts below which are found to be based upon proper present appeal being devoid of any merits, (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE date of hearing and so eviction order (Ex.PW2/D) was passed It is also not disputed that pursuant to the said eviction order, plaintiff obtained possession of the demised property through Court orders in he assessment order nor the eviction order were assailed appellant and as such the same had attained finality. The Courts below thus found that defendant remained in possession of the demised had not paid the arrears of rent @ appellant that he had raised some construction on the demised property and that the plaintiff had ent as defendant had spent the amount in raising the construction. The Courts below rejected this contention by observing that there was specific condition in lease agreement (Ex.D2) executed between eration or addition of any defendant could not convince this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings of facts by the Courts below which are found to be based upon proper , is JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document