L.N. Mittal - (1.) PLAINTIFFS Arvind Singla and Anil Mittal are in second appeal having been substantially successful in the trial Court but having been completely non-suited by the lower appellate Court.
(2.) FACTUAL position in the case is not in dispute. Plaintiffs are Lecturers in defendant No.3-Institute being run by defendants No.1 and 2. Plaintiffs were allotted disputed houses in the Institute Campus and are paying rent/licence fee according to rules. However, defendants No.1 to 3 have passed order dated 15.5.2006 requiring the plaintiffs to pay market rent for the said houses @ RS. 3,731/- per month for each house. The plaintiffs have challenged the said order. The plaintiffs have alleged that they continued to be Lecturers in defendant No.3-Institute and, therefore, plaintiffs are not liable to pay market rent as demanded by defendants. Defendants No.1 to 3 contended that the houses in question were built under World Bank Assistance Scheme and according to the Government instructions dated 24.1.2002 clarified vide instructions dated 29.3.2005, these houses are meant for employees of aided courses only whereas plaintiffs are Lecturers for unaided course and, therefore, plaintiffs are liable to pay market rent for the said houses in view of aforesaid instructions of the Government. Similar stand has been taken by official respondents No.4 and 5.
(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2009 decreed the plaintiffs' suit but gave liberty to the defendants to pass fresh reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. First appeal preferred by defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 24.3.2011 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed whereas cross-objections preferred by plaintiffs in the appeal have been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.;