Arjun Vikram Singh & Others vs Indian Overseas Bank And Another

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Present revision petition filed by the landÂlords assails the findings recorded by both the learned Courts below in respect of the following two issues

framed in the eviction petition preferred under Section 14 of HP Urban Rent Control Act:Â​

“1. Whether the total area under the occupation of the respondent is 2320.57 square feet, as alleged? OPP

Whether petitioners are entitled to recover arrears of rent @ Rs.400/Â​ per square feet per month w.e.f. 01.12.2006, as alleged?..OPPâ€​

The companion Civil Revision No. 144/2019, filed by the tenant/Indian Overseas Bank arising out of the same judgments (as involved in the instant

petition) was disposed of on 31.12.2020, as amicably settled between the parties. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the amicable settlement as

recorded in the judgment dated 31.12.2020, passed in C.R No.144/2019, the possession of the premises has been handedÂover by the

tenant/respondent to the landlord/petitioners. The issues involved in the instant revision petition (as extracted above) are also involved in CS

No.87/2011 filed by the present petitioners before this Court. The issues framed in the Civil Suit are extracted hereinafter:Â​

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.6,56,63,006.16 with costs and statutory interest @12% P.A. on account of arrears

of rent from 1.12.2006 till 31.10.2011 from the defendants, if yes with pendente lite and future interest also or not? OPP

Whether the total area rented out to the defendant/Bank in Building in question works out to 215.63 sq.mtrs (2320.57 sq.ft) as claimed in paraÂ2 of

the plaint and the defendants/Bank is liable to pay rent for the said total area? OPP

Whether the suit being barred under the provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, is not maintainable.. OPD

Whether the suit is bad for nonÂ​joined of necessary party?

Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit due to their own acts, deeds and conduct? OPD

Relief.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents/tenant under instructions submits that he has no objection in case the findings recorded by the learned Courts

below on Issues No.1 & 2 in the instant petition are quashed and set aside provided that the liberty is reserved to them/respondents to agitate/contend

on these issues, in accordance with law, in the Suit No.87/2011. The prayer has not been opposed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the landÂ‐

lords/petitioners. Issue No.1 & 2 as framed in the eviction/rent petition involved in the instant revision petition are overÂlapping & also involved in C.S

No.87/2011, therefore, in light of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents as accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners, the

findings recorded by learned Rent Controller Shimla on Issues No.1 & 2 in the Rent Case No. 104Â2 of 2011 as affirmed by learned Appellate

Authority in Rent Appeal No.2ÂS/13(b) of 2019 are set aside with liberty reserved to the parties to agitate on these issues in Civil Suit No.87/2011.

Pending applications,if any, shall also stand disposed of .