( 2025:HHC:38108 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 144 of 2015. Reserved on: 6 th November, 2025. Decided on: 13 th November, 2025. The Chief General Manager BSNL & Anr. .... Appellants. Versus Jamna Devi ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Sharma and Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (camp at Bilaspur) in Civil 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:38108 ) Appeal No. 62/13 of 2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur H.P. in Civil Suit No. 270/1 of 2006 has been a7rmed. 2. Respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as “plainti9”) had ;led a suit for recovery of Rs.1,37,177/- against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as “defendants”). 3. The plainti9 had let out the building constructed on the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 321/307 and 322/307 in Village Kuthera, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the building) to the defendants at the monthly rent of Rs.3450/-. The defendants had established telephone exchange in the said building. The term of lease agreed between the parties was ;ve years w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2000. 4. The defendants did not vacate the building after lapse of lease period and continued to occupy the same till 31.05.2006 on payment of rent originally agreed between the parties. 5. Plainti9 after vacation of building by the defendants, claimed that the defendants had caused extensive damage to the building and had vacated the same without restoration. Plainti9, 3 ( 2025:HHC:38108 ) thus, had claimed damages to the tune of Rs.1,09.820/- on this account being cost of restoration. Plainti9 also claimed increase in rent for the period during which defendants occupied the building after termination of the lease period. Plainti9 claimed the enhancement in rent @ 25% or in alternative @ 10%, as was allegedly o9ered to be paid by the defendants. 6. Plainti9 issued notice to the defendants putting forth her demands but did not receive any response. Plainti9 then ;led the suit against the defendants as noticed above. 7. The defendants contested the suit by denying its liability. The allegation of damage having been caused to the building was speci;cally denied. It was contended that the defendants had spent Rs.96,750/- on the electric wiring in the building and were entitled to its refund. The liability to pay enhanced rent was also denied. As per the defendants, none of the claim raised by the plainti9 was permissible in terms of the agreement between the parties. 8. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plainti9 is entitled for the relief of recovery of Rs. 1,37,177/- from the 4 ( 2025:HHC:38108 ) defendants along with interest as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plainti9 is entitled for the relief of 15% increase on the rent amount as per o9er made by the defendants as alleged?? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?OPD 4. Whether the plainti9 has no locus standi to ;le the present suit, as alleged?OPD 5. Whether the plainti9 has no cause of action to ;le the present suit, as alleged?OPD 6. Whether the plainti9 is estopped to ;le the present suit by her own acts and conduct, as alleged?OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice U/S 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as alleged?OPD. 8. Relief. 9. Issues No.1 and 2 were answered in a7rmative, whereas, all other issues were answered in negative. The suit of the plainti9 was decreed. A decree of Rs.1,09,820/- along with interest @ 6% per annum was passed in favour of the plainti9 on account of damage caused by the defendants to the building and 5 ( 2025:HHC:38108 ) a sum of Rs.22,425/- was decreed on account of increase in rent @10% for the period 01.01.2001 to 31.05.2006. 10. Defendants assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by ;ling appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin (camp at Bilaspur) dismissed the appeal of the defendants vide impugned judgment and decree by a7rming the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 11. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing on following substantial question of law vide order dated 29.05.2015:- “Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings, misreading and misconstruction of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and facts of the case and the law, the ;ndings recorded by both Courts below are erroneous and as such the judgment and decree impugned in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable? 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 13. It was not in dispute that the building had been leased to the defendants by plainti9 for a period of ;ve years @ rate of 6 ( 2025:HHC:38108 ) Rs.3450/- per month and the lease period had expired on 31.12.2000. 14. Defendants admittedly remained in possession of the building after expiry of lease period till 31.05.2006. Learned trial Court has rendered a speci;c ;nding of fact that lease deed could not be renewed after 31.12.2000 as the parties could not arrive at a consensus as to the rate of rent. It has been found that the plainti9 had been claiming enhancement in rent @ 25%, whereas the defendants had o9ered enhancement @ 10% only. Learned trial Court has based its ;nding to above e9ect by placing reliance on the statement of DW-1 Jai Gopal Rajan, who had appeared as witness of defendants. 15. The ;nding so recorded by learned trial court cannot be faulted; as these are borne from the record. The contents of document Ex. P-4 additionally corroborate the hypothesis. The Ext. P-4 is the copy of communication dated 25.04.2001 from Divisional Engineer (Planning), O7ce of General Manager, BSNL, Hamirpur to the plainti9, whereby increase in rent @ of 10% had been o9ered. 7 ( 2025:HHC:38108 ) 16. Learned First Appellate Court also did not ;nd anything contrary on record and thus has rightly a7rmed the ;ndings rendered by the learned trial Court to above e9ect. 17. Admittedly, the defendants had utilized the property of plainti9 for almost double the agreed period, without providing any incremental increase in the rent and in this background decree of Rs.22,425/- along with interest @6% per annum passed in favour of the plainti9 is legal and equitable to satisfy the claim of damages made by the plainti9. 18. As regards other part of the impugned decree, whereby damages have been awarded to plainti9 for incurring expenses for restoration of the building, also require no interference. Both the Courts have rendered speci;c ;nding of fact that the defendants had made cavities in the RCC lintel of the building as also the walls in order to a7x panels and cables etc., necessary for installation of telephone exchange. In addition, it has also been held by both the Courts that the window panes had been removed by the defendants in order to install air conditioners at least at six places in di9erent Moors of the building. 8 ( 2025:HHC:38108 ) It has also been held that the defendants had not restored the building to its original shape and position before vacating it. 19. The ;ndings of fact as recorded by both the Courts are duly borne from the record. The evidence led by both the parties inevitably lead to above conclusion. Thus, the ;ndings of fact recorded by both the Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 20. The right of plainti9 to get the property restored at the cost of defendants has also rightly been upheld by both the Courts by taking recourse to Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even, as per the terms of the lease agreement, Ex. PX, such right had speci;cally been reserved in favour of plainti9. 21. The quanti;cation of damages had duly been got done by the plainti9 by engaging the experts, who had appeared as witnesses to support the claim of the plainti9. On the other hand, defendants have not been able to rebut such evidence. The damages assessed by the learned trial Court, as payable to the plainti9 by the defendants, are just and reasonable and have foundation in the evidence led by the plainti9. 9 ( 2025:HHC:38108 ) 22. The claim made by the defendants on account of installation of electric wiring in the building has also rightly been denied by both the Courts. The plainti9 was not obligated, in terms of lease deed executed between the parties, to reimburse to the defendants the cost of electric wiring, which had been changed by the defendants only to make it compatible for installation of telephone exchange. The defendants had neither sought set o9 as a defence in the written statement nor had they made counter claim in that behalf. 23. In result, the substantial question of law as noticed above is decided against the defendants/appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree is a7rmed with no orders as to the costs. 24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 25. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 13th November, 2025. (jai)