L.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;