Kishan Chand vs Municipal Council, Pathankot and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Kishan Chand, who was successful in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal.

Plaintiff-Appellant filed suit against Respondents-Defendants i.e. Municipal Council, Pathankot and State of Punjab. The Plaintiff took the disputed shop on rent from Defendant No. 1 in auction held on 18.04.1985. Rate of rent was Rs. 210/-per month. Defendant No. 1 issued notice dated 20.04.2001 requiring the Plaintiff to pay rent on enhanced rate of Rs. 715/ per month. Arrears of rent were also demanded. The Plaintiff in the suit challenged the said notice alleging that there was no condition in the terms and conditions of the auction that Defendant No. 1 can increase the rate of rent. Enhanced rate of rent demanded by Defendant No. 1 is not contractual rate of rent. Accordingly, Plaintiff sought declaration that rate of rent is Rs. 210/-per month and Defendants have no right to enhance the rate of rent and impugned notice dated 20.04.2001 issued by Defendant No. 1, requiring the Plaintiff to pay arrears of rent at enhanced rate, is null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from making recovery of enhanced rent was also sought.

Defendants, while admitting that Plaintiff had taken the shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 210/-per month in the year 1985, broadly denied other plaint allegations. It was pleaded that as per instructions of Punjab Government, rate of rent was increased by 20% i.e. to Rs. 252/-per month in the year 1995 and thereafter, increased by 20% after every three years i.e. to Rs. 303/-per month in the year 1998 and to Rs. 364/-per month in the year 2001. It appears from the judgment of the lower appellate court that during pendency of the litigation, rate of rent was further enhanced to Rs. 437/-per month in the year 2004. The Defendants justified the enhancement of rent at the aforesaid rates. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot, vide judgment and decree dated 11.08.2007, decreed the Plaintiff''s suit, as prayed for. However, first appeal preferred by Defendant No. 1 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2010 and thereby, suit filed by the Plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, Plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that Defendant No. 1 has no right to enhance the rate of rent. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case ofOm Parkash v. State of Haryana reported as 2000 (2) LJR 348.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein.

In the case of Om Parkash (supra), Municipal Committee issued notice for enhancement of rent on the basis of instructions issued by State Government. The tenants made representation against the enhancement of rent. This Court held that State Government has power to issue suitable and necessary instructions/policy to various Municipal Committees. It was also observed that power to increase rent of the shop vested with Municipal Committees and not with the State Government. In that case, this Court directed the Municipal Committee to consider the representations made by the tenants and thereafter, to decide whether the tenants were liable to pay enhanced rent and if so, from which date. In the instant case, however, the Plaintiff-Appellant admittedly did not make any representation to Defendant No. 1 against enhancement of rent. Moreover, in the instant case, Defendant No. 1 even passed resolution dated 12.03.1998 (Ex.D-5) for enhancing the rent. Letter dated 18.01.1995 (Ex.D-4) had also been issued by Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff. In the instant case, thus, Defendant No. 1 has taken the decision to enhance the rent, although may be on the basis of instructions of State Government. However, if Defendant No. 1 found the instructions of State Government worthy of being followed, no fault can be found with the decision of Defendant No. 1 to enhance the rate of rent, as per instructions of State Government, by taking conscious decision.

The matter may also be examined from another angle. Plaintiff took the shop on rent in the year 1985 at Rs. 210/-per month. For ten years, there was no increase in the rate of rent. Even after ten years, it was increased by modest 20% to Rs. 252/-per month in the year 1995. Thereafter, it was enhanced to Rs. 303/-per month in the year 1998 and to Rs. 364/-per month in the year 2001. The said increase of rent cannot be said to be excessive or oppressive in nature. On the contrary, the said increase is very modest and reasonable. Consequently, the same cannot be said to be illegal or liable to be quashed.

There is another aspect of the matter. If the Plaintiff finds the rate of rent to be excessive, he is at liberty to vacate the disputed shop. Defendant No. 1 cannot compel the Plaintiff to continue to occupy the shop at the enhanced rate of rent. The Plaintiff has option to continue to occupy the shop at the rate of rent demanded by Defendant No. 1 or to vacate the same. On the contrary, the Plaintiff cannot claim to be perpetual tenant in the shop at the initial rate of rent i.e. Rs. 210/-per month, without any enhancement whatsoever.

Thus, examined from any angle, there is no merit in the instant second appeal. Judgment of the lower appellate court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.