Balwant Kaur and Ors v. Tilak Raj Etc

IN T

Balwant Kaur an Tilak Raj (decea

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

appellants/defen Courts below w has been decre learned trial Cou Lower Appellate Brief Facts

2.

defendants for r the premises in the demised pre present defenda month vide leas THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da nd Others

VERSUS ased) through LRs and Another ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Harminder Singh, Advocate fo r. Deepak Arora, Advocate for th -.-

ANNU,J. e present Regular Second A ndants challenging the concurre whereby the suit of the plaintiff-eed. The judgment and decree urt, as well as the judgment date e Court, are under challenge. e brief facts of the case are that recovery of ₹7,440/– being the ex dispute. It was pleaded that the p emises by late Balraj Singh, w nts. The plaintiff was inducted a e deed dated 02.12.1975.

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1206-1993 (O&M) served on:-04.09.2025 ate of Decision : 10.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU or the appellants. he respondents. Appeal has been filed by ent findings recorded by both Tilak Raj for refund of excess r dated 08.02.1990 passed by ed 01.02.1993 passed by the learn the plaintiff filed a suit against xcess rent paid by him in respec plaintiff was inducted as a tenan whose legal representatives are as a tenant at the rate of ₹500/–

- rent ned ct of nt in

3.

Bal against the plain proceedings, Ba whereas the actu to avoid the risk at the rate of ₹2 doing so, the pla by Balraj Singh

4.

Controller, Kapu between the par petition, Balraj representatives, the defendants h therefore the pl month. The plai interest on ₹4,50

5.

Court, but the requests, the def with no option, along with inter

6.

Up alleging that the month and not ₹ lraj Singh, during his lifetime ntiff on various grounds, includin alraj Singh claimed arrears of ren ual agreed rent between the part k of ejectment, the plaintiff tende 200/– per month along with inter aintiff reserved his right to claim . e said ejectment petition was urthala, on 14.12.1984, and it w rties was ₹500/– per month. Dur Singh died and the present defe having inherited the property in had used the excess rent amoun laintiff was also entitled to inte intiff also asserted that at the tim 00/–, and therefore he was entitle e matter was carried further in a same was ultimately dismissed fendants failed to refund the exc , the plaintiff filed the present est on notice, the defendants app e rate of rent as per lease deed d ₹500/– per month as pleaded by t

e, filed an ejectment applicat ng non-payment of rent. In the s nt at the rate of ₹2000/– per mon ties was ₹500/– per month. In or ered arrears of rent for three mon rest on 05.04.1982. However, wh m refund of the excess rent receiv ultimately dismissed by the R was held that the rate of rent sett ring the pendency of the ejectm endants were impleaded as his le n dispute. It was further pleaded t nt for their own personal use, erest thereon at the rate of 1% me of tender, he had paid ₹150/– ed to refund of that amount as w appeal by the defendants before t d on 14.11.1985. Despite repea cess amount received by them. L suit seeking recovery of ₹7,44 eared and filed written statem dated 03.12.1975 was ₹2,000/– the plaintiff. It was pleaded that

- tion said nth, rder nths hile ved Rent tled ment egal that per – as well. this ated Left 40/– ment

parties were bou It was admitted that the plaintiff According to th said application It was further p and it was neve the suit was liab

7.

Fro the learned trial

¶1def

¶2pre

¶3his

4.

¶5pla

6.

8.

In a 5A adj Sin und by the terms of the lease de that they had filed an ejectment f had correctly tendered the rent he defendants, the plaintiff had u n and therefore could not subsequ leaded that the dispute regardin r finally settled that the rate of r ble to be dismissed. om the pleadings of the parties, th court: Whether the plaintiff is entit fendants? If so, to what extent? O Whether the present suit is eliminary objection No. 4 of the w Whether the plaintiff is deba act and conduct? OPD Whether the suit is not within Whether the defendants are n aintiff? OPD Relief. addition, the following additiona A. Whether the Rent Controller udicate upon the ejectment appl ngh against Tilak Raj? OPD

eed and not by any other docume application against the plaintiff t at the rate of ₹2,000/– per mon unconditionally made tender in uently claim refund of any amou ng the rate of rent was still pend rent was ₹500/– per month. Hen he following issues were framed led to recover any amount from OPP s liable to be stayed as alleged written statement? OPD arred from filing the present suit n time? OPD not liable to pay any amount to al issues were also framed: had no jurisdiction to entertain lication filed by the landlord Ba

- ent. nth. unt. ding nce, d by d in t by n or

5B bef

9.

Findings of the

10.

carefully exami the judgment Ex From this judgm be ₹500/– per Learned counse while deciding of rent of the p ₹2,000/– per m therefore illegal

11.

Rel learned trial Cou the defendants h with interest. Th ₹7,440/– along proceedings.

12.

As that there was n the machinery t The rent note Ex held that if the d . Whether the judgment dated fore the Rent Controller are with e parties led their respective evid e trial Court ereafter, the learned trial Court ned the evidence on record. Th x. P5 passed by the Rent Contr ment, it was proved that the rate month, which finding was als l for the plaintiff further relied u appeal arising out of ejectment premises in dispute was ₹500/ onth claimed by the landlord w . lying upon the aforesaid judgme urt held that the rate of rent stoo had in fact recovered rent at the herefore, the plaintiff was entitle with the interest paid by him at regards additional issues 5A an o evidence that Balraj Singh had to the plaintiff so as to oust the x. D1 did not support the plea o defendants intended to raise an

d 14.12.1984 and all proceedi out jurisdiction and void? OPD dence. t heard counsel for the parties he plaintiff had produced copies roller in the ejectment proceedin of rent of the premises was held o upheld by the Appellate Co upon 1986 (1) RCJ 42, wherein t proceedings, had held that the r /– per month and that the rate was in the nature of penal rent ent and the evidence produced, od proved at ₹500/– per month, e rate of ₹2,000/– per month alo ed to recover the excess amoun the time of tender in the ejectm nd 5B, the learned trial Court h d rented out the premises along w jurisdiction of the Rent Control of the defendants. The Court furt objection regarding the jurisdict

- ings s of ngs. d to ourt. his, rate e of but ong t of ment held with ller. ther

of the Rent Con themselves. Sin same in the pres the defendants w order dated 14. ₹500/– per mont

13.

In t ₹7,440/– with c Judge, Kapurtha Findings of the

14.

Fee learned trial C representatives

08.02.1990.

15.

parties and peru had already bee judgment Ex.P5 against the said and the revision Thus, the findin binding.

16.

the rent deed, w stipulation that ntroller, they ought to have don ce no such objection was taken, sent civil suit. Accordingly, both with a finding that the Rent Con

12.1984 passed by the Rent Co th was valid and binding. the light of these findings, the s osts was decreed against the de ala, vide judgment and decree da e Lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved by the aforesaid Court, the defendants preferr of the plaintiff challenging e learned Lower Appellate Co using the record, observed that i en held to be ₹500/– per month 5 passed by the Rent Controlle judgment was dismissed by the n petition filed before this Court ng that the rate of rent was ₹500 e learned Appellate Court furth wherein the rate of rent was men if the tenant failed to vacate th

ne so in the ejectment proceedi , the defendants could not raise h these issues were decided aga ntroller had the jurisdiction and ontroller holding the rate of rent suit of the plaintiff for recovery fendants by the learned Senior S ated 08.02.1990. judgment and decree passed by ed an appeal against the le the judgment and decree da ourt, after hearing counsel for in the present case, the rate of r h in the ejectment proceedings er. It was admitted that the app Appellate Authority on 30.05.19 was also dismissed on 14.11.19 /– per month had become final her referred to Ex. D1, the copy ntioned as ₹500/– per month wit he premises after the expiry of f

- ngs inst t as y of Sub egal ated rent by peal

¶985y of th a

years, the rent w settled principle cannot contract therefore void b Restriction Act.

17.

It w plaintiff had ten along with ₹20 coercive pressur to the tune of ₹4 Court held that amount but also ₹7,440/– filed b

18.

Court was also c to be governed specific Article would fall unde limitation of thr case, the ejectm it was only on th month and not

14.12.1984. The within limitation would stand increased to ₹2,000/ e of law that there can be no e themselves out of statutory prov being contrary to the provision was also noticed that in order to ndered an amount of ₹6,230/– 00/– as interest, which had bee re in the ejectment petition. Thu 4,500/– and further ₹150/– as int the plaintiff/tenant was entitled o to interest on such excess pa y the plaintiff was held to be val e objection of limitation raised b considered. The Court held that by the provisions of the Indian relating to such a claim unde er the residuary Article 137 of th ree years from the date when the ment petition was decided by the R his date that it was finally held t t ₹2,000/– per month. Theref e present suit having been filed n.

/– per month. It was held that it estoppel against statute and par visions. Clause No. 5 of Ex. D1 w ns of the East Punjab Urban R o save himself from ejectment, at the rate of ₹2,000/– per mo en received by the landlord un us, the landlord had received exc terest. The learned Lower Appell d not only to refund of this exc ayment. Accordingly, the claim lid. before the learned Lower Appell a suit for recovery of excess ren n Limitation Act. Since there is er the head of contract, the ma he Limitation Act, which prescri e right to sue accrues. In the pres Rent Controller on 14.12.1984, that the rate of rent was ₹500/– fore, limitation would start fr on 19.05.1987 was held to be w

- is a rties was Rent onth nder cess late cess m of late nt is s no atter ibes sent per rom

19.

In v the judgment an defendants by ju

20.

Fee courts below, th

21.

contested the ap contest the appe Findings of this

22.

I ha appellants and whether the su limitation.

23.

Supreme Court 1970 RCR (Re interpreting Sec Control Act, 194 may be recovere filing a suit, but the date of pay recovery is barr right to deduct months expires. view of these findings, the learn nd decree of the learned trial Co udgment and decree dated 01.02. eling aggrieved by the concurr he defendants have preferred the tice of the appeal was issued on ppeal, but later on no one appea eal. s Court ave carefully considered the sub examined the record. The piv uit filed by the plaintiff for r e reliance placed by the appell in the case of Jamnadas Harkc ent) 244, is well supported. Th ction 20 of the Bombay Rents, 47, categorically held that if a te ed either by way of deduction fro t in either case such recovery mu yment. If the tenant fails to ac red by limitation. The Court obs are co-extensive, and both are e

ed Lower Appellate Court affirm ourt and dismissed the appeal of .1993. rent findings recorded by both present Regular Second Appeal. n 26.07.1993. Initially responde ared on behalf of the respondents bmissions of learned counsel for votal issue in the present case recovery of excess rent is wit lants on the judgment of Hon' chand v. Narayanlal Bansilal, A he Hon'ble Supreme Court, wh , Hotel and Lodging House Ra enant has paid excess rent, the sa om rent subsequently payable or ust be made within six months fr ct within this period, the right served that the right to sue and extinguished once the period of

- med f the . ents s to e is thin 'ble AIR hile ates ame r by rom t of

24.

Thi Bhim Sain v. L Court observed "9. rec way per cla evic cau

25.

Thu claim for refund Punjab Urban R of such excess p

26.

Ap disputed that th ₹2,000/– per mo intended to see

05.04.1982 itse therefore expire by the Rent Con dismissal of the period of limita excess rent and is legal position was reiterated b Laxmi Narain, AIR 1982 P&H 1 as under:

It is undisputed that the e coverable by him under Section y of suit is also not barred. The r riod of six months of such excess e twin question is whether the te im refund of the excess paymen ction petition itself since an eve use of action." us, both the Hon'ble Supreme C d of excess rent is specifically Rent Restriction Act and must be payment. plying the above principles to th he plaintiff tendered arrears of onth along with interest, in order ek refund of the excess so pa lf. The limitation for filing suc e on 05.10.1982. The subsequent ntroller on 14.12.1984, dismissa e revision petition by this Court ation. The starting point of lim not the date of final adjudication

by a Division Bench of this Cour

¶155In para 9 of the judgment, excess rent paid by the tenant 7 of the Act and that an action remedies can be availed of withi s payments as provided in Section enant should file a separate sui nts or can he claim an issue in ent occurring therein gave him Court and this Court have held th governed by Section 7 of the E e filed within six months of the d he facts of the present case, it is rent on 05.04.1982 at the rate r to avoid ejectment. If the plain aid, his cause of action arose ch a claim under Section 7 wo t dismissal of the ejectment petit al of the appeal on 30.05.1985, t on 14.11.1985, do not extend mitation is the date of payment n of the ejectment proceedings.

- rt in t is n by in a n 7. it to at a East date not e of ntiff on ould tion

27.

Eve period of three point would stil Counting three The present suit time-barred. The adjudication of excess rent aris determination of

28.

whether reckone under the residu courts below, t unsustainable an Conclusion

29.

In judgments and trial Court and The present Reg

30.

Pen

September 10, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh en if, for the sake of argument years under Article 137 of the L ll be 05.04.1982, the date on w years from that date, the limita t having been instituted only on e plaintiff cannot claim that limi the ejectment petition, since th ses on the date of actual payme f the agreed rent. e present suit was thus filed fa ed under the special statute (six uary provision (three years unde treating the claim as within lim nd are thus liable to be set aside. view of the discussion ma decrees dated 08.02.1990 and learned Lower Appellate Court, gular Second Appeal is allowed. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

t, it is assumed that the limitat Limitation Act applies, the start which the excess rent was tender ation would expire on 05.04.19

19.05.1987 is, therefore, hopeles itation begins from the date of fi he cause of action for recovery ent and not on subsequent judi ar beyond the period of limitati x months under Section 7) or ev er Article 137). The findings of mitation, are contrary to law

ade herein-above, the impugn

01.02.1993, passed by the learn , respectively, are hereby set asi

stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- tion ting red.

¶985ssly final y of cial ion, ven ned ned