IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 British Academy through its Proprietor & Another M/s Devkusha CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the been partly decreed by both 2. the owner and landlord of the suit premises were taken on lease by the appellants/defendants by way of registered Lease Deed dated 20.10.2003 month with further increase of rent @ 7% per annum and other conditions as stipulated therein. the parties was the appellants paid the said rent up to 31 paying the rent. assessment of rent was made at the rate of Rs.66,457/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH British Academy through its Proprietor & Another Vs. M/s Devkusha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. The defendants are in second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for been partly decreed by both the Courts below for an amount of Rs.26 lakh. Brief facts of the case are that the owner and landlord of the suit premises as described suit premises were taken on lease by the appellants/defendants by way of registered Lease Deed dated 20.10.2003 at the rate of Rs.39,000/ further increase of rent @ 7% per annum and other conditions as stipulated therein. Subsequently, mutually agreed rate of rent between the parties was enhanced to Rs.66,457/-. It was the case of the plaintiff that the appellants paid the said rent up to 31.12.2009 whereafter they stopped paying the rent. The plaintiff had filed Rent Petition in which provisional assessment of rent was made at the rate of Rs.66,457/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-986-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 28.03.2025 British Academy through its Proprietor & Another ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate are in second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby for recovery of Rs.65,76,987/- has below for an amount of Rs.26 lakh. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Company is premises as described in the plaint. The suit premises were taken on lease by the appellants/defendants by way of at the rate of Rs.39,000/- per further increase of rent @ 7% per annum and other conditions mutually agreed rate of rent between . It was the case of the plaintiff that .12.2009 whereafter they stopped The plaintiff had filed Rent Petition in which provisional assessment of rent was made at the rate of Rs.66,457/- per month till 4 are in second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby has Company is in the plaint. The suit premises were taken on lease by the appellants/defendants by way of per further increase of rent @ 7% per annum and other conditions mutually agreed rate of rent between . It was the case of the plaintiff that .12.2009 whereafter they stopped The plaintiff had filed Rent Petition in which provisional per month till SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 31.03.2012, Subsequently, as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent as also service tax along with interest and electricity charges, etc. the plaintiff had filed present decreed by the learned tri 29.11.2018, “...with costs for recovery of Rs.26,47,983/ also entitled to recover the interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the reali amount...”. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2025. Hence, present second appeal. 3. that no ground was made out for the plaintiff to file the suit as it was the clear pleaded case of the appellant that there were no arrears of rent or arrears of any other sundry charges. The premises had been vacated by the defendant on 15.04.200 Rent Petition was withdrawn by the respondent. Subsequently, after due deliberations between the parties, all disputes were settled and all dues pending regarding the tenanted premises were finally settled the respondent also withdrew another Civil Suit filed by him for permanent injunction on 13.10.2015 parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that this fact which was accepted by the plaintiff under protest. Subsequently, as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent as also service tax along with interest and electricity charges, etc. the plaintiff had present suit for recovery of Rs.65,76,987/ decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated “...with costs for recovery of Rs.26,47,983/ also entitled to recover the interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the reali The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2025. Hence, present second appeal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the de that no ground was made out for the plaintiff to file the suit as it was the clear pleaded case of the appellant that there were no arrears of rent or arrears of any other sundry charges. The premises had been vacated by the defendant on 15.04.2005. On the very next day i.e. 16.04.2005, the first Rent Petition was withdrawn by the respondent. Subsequently, after due deliberations between the parties, all disputes were settled and all dues pending regarding the tenanted premises were finally settled the respondent also withdrew another Civil Suit filed by him for permanent injunction on 13.10.2015. As such, all accounts It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that this fact which was accepted by the plaintiff under protest. Subsequently, as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent as also service tax along with interest and electricity charges, etc. the plaintiff had suit for recovery of Rs.65,76,987/-. The said suit was partly al Court vide judgment and decree dated “...with costs for recovery of Rs.26,47,983/-. Further, plaintiff is also entitled to recover the interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of decretal The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendants that no ground was made out for the plaintiff to file the suit as it was the clear pleaded case of the appellant that there were no arrears of rent or arrears of any other sundry charges. The premises had been vacated by the 5. On the very next day i.e. 16.04.2005, the first Rent Petition was withdrawn by the respondent. Subsequently, after due deliberations between the parties, all disputes were settled and all dues pending regarding the tenanted premises were finally settled after which the respondent also withdrew another Civil Suit filed by him for permanent all accounts stood settled between the It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that this fact 4 which was accepted by the plaintiff under protest. Subsequently, as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent as also service tax along with interest and electricity charges, etc. the plaintiff had . The said suit was partly al Court vide judgment and decree dated . Further, plaintiff is also entitled to recover the interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per zation of decretal The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated fendants that no ground was made out for the plaintiff to file the suit as it was the clear pleaded case of the appellant that there were no arrears of rent or arrears of any other sundry charges. The premises had been vacated by the 5. On the very next day i.e. 16.04.2005, the first Rent Petition was withdrawn by the respondent. Subsequently, after due deliberations between the parties, all disputes were settled and all dues after which the respondent also withdrew another Civil Suit filed by him for permanent stood settled between the It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that this fact SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document has been admitte Company/PW1 during his evidence of Accounts had taken place after the withdrawal of the Rent Petition Ex. P 9 and before the withdrawal of Suit Ex. DA...”. above, it is clear that a settlement had taken place between the plaintiff Company and the defendants. It is contended that admission is the best evidence and therefore, recovery of Rs.26 lakh could not have been directed agai accounts stood settled between the parties. 4. 5. perused the case file in great deta 6. the appellants/defendants. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 Rajesh Raina the authorised representative of the plaintiff Company present appeal as Annexure A1 shows that PW1 examination as has been admitted by the authorised representative of the plaintiff /PW1 during his evidence that “...It is correct that the Settlement of Accounts had taken place after the withdrawal of the Rent Petition Ex. P 9 and before the withdrawal of Suit Ex. DA...”. above, it is clear that a settlement had taken place between the plaintiff Company and the defendants. It is contended that admission is the best evidence and therefore, recovery of Rs.26 lakh could not have been directed against the appellant in view of the admission of PW1 that all accounts stood settled between the parties. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the sole argument made on behalf of the appellants/defendants. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 Rajesh Raina the authorised representative of the plaintiff Company present appeal as Annexure A1 shows that PW1 examination as follows: - “...It is incorrect to suggest that all the accounts with the Defendants were settled including the issue regarding the payment of due Rent due to which no right was reserved for recovery of Rent vide Ex. DA. It is correct that the Settlement of Accounts had taken place after the withdrawal of the Rent Petition Ex. P-9 and before the withdrawal of Suit Ex. DA incorrect to suggest that the Plaintiff has no right to recover d by the authorised representative of the plaintiff “...It is correct that the Settlement of Accounts had taken place after the withdrawal of the Rent Petition Ex. P- 9 and before the withdrawal of Suit Ex. DA...”. It is contended that from the above, it is clear that a settlement had taken place between the plaintiff Company and the defendants. It is contended that admission is the best evidence and therefore, recovery of Rs.26 lakh could not have been nst the appellant in view of the admission of PW1 that all accounts stood settled between the parties. made on behalf of the appellants. arned counsel for the appellants and I find no merit in the sole argument made on behalf of the appellants/defendants. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 Rajesh Raina the authorised representative of the plaintiff Company appended with the present appeal as Annexure A1 shows that PW1 has stated in his cross- It is incorrect to suggest that all the accounts with the Defendants were settled including the issue regarding the payment of due Rent due to which no right was reserved for It is correct that the Settlement of Accounts had taken place after the withdrawal of the Rent 9 and before the withdrawal of Suit Ex. DA. DA. It is incorrect to suggest that the Plaintiff has no right to recover 4 d by the authorised representative of the plaintiff “...It is correct that the Settlement - It is contended that from the above, it is clear that a settlement had taken place between the plaintiff Company and the defendants. It is contended that admission is the best evidence and therefore, recovery of Rs.26 lakh could not have been nst the appellant in view of the admission of PW1 that all and I find no merit in the sole argument made on behalf of the appellants/defendants. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 Rajesh Raina appended with the - It is incorrect to suggest that all the accounts with the Defendants were settled including the issue regarding the payment of due Rent due to which no right was reserved for It is correct that the Settlement of Accounts had taken place after the withdrawal of the Rent It is incorrect to suggest that the Plaintiff has no right to recover SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. piecemeal reading of the deposition of PW1. Learned Counsel for the appellants is unable to 8. 9. 28.03.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: any Rent from the Defendants Accounts mentioned above.” Clearly, the argument of the appellants is based on piecemeal reading of the deposition of PW1. Learned Counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or deny the above said fact. In view of the above, present Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No any Rent from the Defendants in view of Settlement of Clearly, the argument of the appellants is based on a piecemeal reading of the deposition of PW1. Learned Counsel for the deny the above said fact. resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 in view of Settlement of a piecemeal reading of the deposition of PW1. Learned Counsel for the SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document