Smt. Shanti Devi vs Sh. Mange Ram Gupta

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011 and today it is effective item No. 8 on the Regular Board. It is 3:30 pm. No one appears for the parties. I have therefore gone through the record and am proceeding to dispose of the matter.

The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.2.2001 whereby the suit of the Appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,05,000/- was dismissed. The recovery claimed was towards arrears of rent, water and electricity charges.

The Trial Court has held that there was no proof that the rent was increased from Rs. 120/- to Rs. 2,000/- The Trial Court has further held that the property in question was already transferred and the arrears are claimed from 1991 to 10.4.1996, when the property was sold. The Trial Court has rightly observed that there was no reason for the Appellant/plaintiff to remain silent from 1991 till 1996 for sending of the notice claiming arrears of rent if really the rent was in arrears. The Trial Court has further rightly recorded that there was no proof on record as to what is the rate of rent. Though, the observations of the Trial Court with regard to entitlement to recover rent being of the new owner, may not be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the conclusion of the Trial Court is otherwise correct that the Appellant/plaintiff has failed to discharge her onus to prove that the arrears of rent were due to her, more so because the Respondent proved on record sending of two money orders (exhibited as Ex.DW1/P1to Ex.DW1/P4 which are money order receipts and the postal receipts) totaling Rs. 3,000/- and which were duly received by a family member of the Appellant/plaintiff. The money orders were sent on 10.1.96 and in the notice dated 26.2.96, Ex.P2, there is no mention of the money orders for claiming of the amount payable towards the arrears of rent and other charges from the Defendant.

I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this Court in appeal. Merely because two views are possible, this Court is not entitled to interfere unless the view taken by the Trial Court is perverse. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. The appeal is therefore without merits and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Trial Court Record be sent back.