1 2026:HHC:34456 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 467 of 2008 Reserved on: 11.08.2026 Date of Decision: 17.08.2026 Raj Kumar Khanna ...Appellant Versus Kishori Lal Sharda ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Vanshika Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2008, passed by learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.4, Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34456 upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for recovery of ₹29,550/- as damages @₹150/- per day for the defendant’s failure to hand over possession of the premises to the plaintiff after its reconstruction as per the compromise. An alternative accommodation as per the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 21.09.1998 and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from charging any rent of the premises from 29.12.2000 till the premises becomes usable were also sought. It was asserted that the defendant is the owner of the premises mentioned in Para-1 of the plaint. The plaintiff was the tenant of the ground floor of the building. The defendant filed an eviction petition against the plaintiff. The matter was compromised before the learned Appellate Authority on 21.09.1998. It was agreed that the plaintiff would vacate the premises, and the defendant would reconstruct it and hand over possession to the plaintiff within 15 months from the date of handing over the possession. It was agreed that the defendant 3 2026:HHC:34456 would pay damages to the plaintiff at the rate of ₹150/- per day on failure to deliver the possession. The defendant failed to complete the construction within the period. The defendant handed over possession of less area than was agreed to the plaintiff on 29.12.2000. It was agreed that rent would be reduced suitably. The premises handed over to the plaintiff is devoid of any light and air and is not usable. Hence, the suit was filed for seeking the relief mentioned above. 3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement admitting that the defendant is the owner of the premises and the plaintiff was a tenant. It was also admitted that the compromise was effected between the parties. It was claimed that the defendant could not complete the construction till 15.06.2000 for reasons beyond his control. The defendant applied to the Appellate Authority for an extension of time for completing the construction. The godown was completed before 14.08.2000, and the defendant asked the plaintiff to take possession of the completed godown. However, the plaintiff prevaricated, and the defendant filed an application before the Appellate Authority. The statements of the parties were recorded, and the possession was delivered on 29.12.2000. The plaintiff had paid ₹1,08,540/- as advance rent to 4 2026:HHC:34456 the defendant. There was a shortage of about 10 sq.ft. of the area, and the rent was revised to ₹15/- per sq.ft. The plaintiff is in possession of 154 sq.ft., and the monthly rent was fixed at ₹2,310/- as per the amended compromise. The amount taken as advance was adjusted towards the rent due. The plaintiff has installed his own electricity meter in the premises, and he is using it as a godown. The suit was filed without any basis. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed. 5. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 15.03.2003: - (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ₹29550/-, as prayed for? OPP. (ii) Whether the defendant is liable to be restrained from claiming and charging any rent of the premises from 29.12.2000, till the time the premises remained unusable, as prayed for? OPP. (iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD. (iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, on account of his own acts deed, as alleged? OPD. (v) Whether the suit is time-barred, as alleged? OPD. (vi) Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 5 2026:HHC:34456 (vii) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine the present suit, as alleged? OPD. (viii) Relief. 6. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence and the plaintiff examined Anuj Tomar (PW1), Ghanshyam (PW2), Vipin Lal Sood (PW3) and himself (DW4). The defendant examined Kamlesh (DW1), himself (DW2) and Shashi Thakur (DW3). 7. The learned Trial Court held that the parties had entered into a compromise (Ex.PW4/A), in which it was agreed that the possession was to be delivered on 15.06.2000; however, the possession was delivered on 29.12.2000. It was also agreed that the damages would be paid at the rate of ₹150/- per day on failure to deliver the possession. Hence, the plaintiff was entitled to the damages of ₹29,550/-. The plea taken by the defendant that there was an alteration in the original compromise was not acceptable. Hence, the learned Trial Court answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, the rest of the issues in the negative and partly decreed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal which was decided by the learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, HP (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the 6 2026:HHC:34456 findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the parties had entered into a compromise on 29.09.1998 in which it was agreed that the defendant would hand over the possession of the premises to the plaintiff on or before 15.06.2000 and he would pay damages at the rate of ₹150/- per day on failure to deliver the possession. The defendant delivered possession on 29.12.2000. The modification in the compromise was regarding the rate of the rent, and other terms and conditions of the original compromise were not modified. The plaintiff never raised any objection to the habitable condition of the premises. The learned Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below, the defendant has filed the present appeal which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 15.07.2010: - (i) Whether the Courts below have committed an error in misappreciating and misinterpreting the documents filed by the defendant, as also the compromise deeds (Exts. PW4/A and 4/F)? 10. I have heard Mr Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms Vanshika Sharma, learned counsel for the 7 2026:HHC:34456 appellant/defendant and Mr Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the respondent. 11. Mr Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant/defendant, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the Compromise Deeds (Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/F). The terms and conditions of the compromise (Ex.PW4/A) were modified by subsequent compromise (Ex.PW4/F). The plaintiff had prevaricated in taking possession, and the defendant had to approach the Appellate Authority for seeking the direction to the plaintiff to take possession. The plaintiff is not entitled to damages because of his conduct. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below be set aside. 12. Mr Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, submitted that the compromise (Ex.PW4/A) was modified by the subsequent compromise (Ex.PW4/F) only to the extent of the area, and there was no modification regarding the date on which the possession was to be delivered to the plaintiff or the damages which were payable to the plaintiff in case of failure of the defendant to hand over the possession to the plaintiff. Learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence, and there is no 8 2026:HHC:34456 perversity in the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 13. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. Substantial Question of law: 14. The compromise (Ex.PW4/A) provided that the tenant would vacate the premises within one month from the date of the notice given to him by the landlord. The landlord shall reconstruct the ground floor within 15 months of the vacation of the premises by the defendant. The godown and passages would be let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of ₹3,015/- inclusive of all the taxes. The tenant would be liable to be evicted by the process of the Court in case of failure to vacate the premises and the landlord would be liable to pay damages @ ₹150/- per day in case of failure to reconstruct the building within 15 months. 15. This compromise was amended on 29.12.2000 (Ex.PW4/F). It was recorded by the learned Appellate Authority that the respondent had taken possession of the store in question. The 9 2026:HHC:34456 respondent shall not be liable to pay rent in respect of the approach measuring 20 ft. x 3 ft. provided for his store. However, he shall be liable to pay rent at the rate of ₹15/- and the rent would be payable with effect from 29.12.2000. The plaintiff’s statement (Ex.PW4/G) was recorded, in which he stated that a slight modification was to be made in the earlier compromise and, as per the modification, the plaintiff would not pay the rent for the passage measuring 20 ft. x 03 ft.; however, he would have a right of passage. The rent of the store would be fixed at the rate of ₹15/- per sq.ft. after the measurement. The defendant also made a statement (Ex.PW4/I-1) that he had heard the statement of the plaintiff, which was acceptable to him. 16. Thus, it is apparent from the order dated 29.12.2000 (Ex.PW4/F) and the statements of the parties that the earlier compromise (Ex.PW4/A) was modified only to the extent that the plaintiff was not liable to pay rent in respect of the passage measuring 20 ft x 3 ft. and the rent was fixed @ ₹15/- per sq.ft. after the measurement. The other terms and conditions of the earlier compromise were not modified. Thus, learned Courts below had rightly held that the condition regarding the reconstruction of 10 2026:HHC:34456 the premises within 15 months and payment of the damages @ ₹150/- per day were not modified. 17. The defendant admitted in para-3 of the written statement that he could not complete the construction work on 15.06.2000 because of the circumstances beyond his control. Defendant Raj Kumar (DW2) admitted in his cross-examination that the possession was delivered to the plaintiff on 29.12.2000 vide receipt (Ex.PW4/J), which mentions that the possession was taken on 29.12.2000. Thus, the facts that the premises were not complete on 15.06.2000 and the possession was delivered on 29.12.2000 were not in dispute. Therefore, learned Courts below had rightly held the plaintiff to be entitled to the damages. There is no mis-appreciation or misinterpretation of the compromise (Ex.PW4/A) and (Ex.PW4/F) by the learned Courts below. Hence, this substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Final Order: 18. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 11 2026:HHC:34456 20. Records of the learned Courts below be sent down forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th August, 2026 (Nikita)