Food Corporation Of India vs Firm Mahila Gramin Bhandaran ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7722 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:31808]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 167/2023

1. Food Corporation Of India, Through General Manager, 16-

20 Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.

2. Regional Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Vinoba Basi, Sri Ganganagar.

----Appellants Versus Firm Mahila Gramin Bhandaran, Chak 15 M L, Abohar Hanumangar, By Pass, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar, Through Bhagidar Neelam Mittal W/o Shri Bajrang Lal By Caste Agarwal, Resident Of Nagori Colony, Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                        ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)               :    Mr. Nitin Trivedi
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. G.R. Goyal



               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                     Judgment

27/09/2023

1. The present first appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Additional

District Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Civil Original Suit

No.41/2018 (CIS No.87/2018) whereby the suit for recovery as

preferred by the plaintiff firm has been decreed for an amount of

Rs.36,61,416/- with interest @6% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that so far as

the finding on issue No.1 is concerned, the Court below erred in

passing a decree for Rs.36,61,416/- as the Court held the plaintiff

entitled for guaranteed rent for the period from 01.11.2015 to

20.06.2016 whereas for the said period, although the amount qua

guaranteed rent was not paid by the Department, the same was

[2023:RJ-JD:31808] (2 of 5) [CFA-167/2023]

definitely paid as per Actual Utilisation Basis (AUB). An amount of

Rs.9,81,722/- was paid during the said period to the plaintiff firm

and hence the said amount ought to have been deducted while

calculating the due amount of rent. Learned counsel further

submitted that the documents reflecting the said deposit have

been placed on record along with an application under Order 41

Rule 27, CPC in the present appeal which requires consideration

by this Court.

3. The second ground raised by learned counsel for the

appellants is that as the written agreement in question was

entered for the period till October 2015 only, the defendant

Department was liable to pay the guaranteed rent only till that

date. Subsequent to that date, there being no written agreement

in existence, the liability to pay the guaranteed rent could not be

fastened upon the defendant Department.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below

erred in relying upon the internal communication of the

Department whereby an opinion to extend the agreement in

question on the guaranteed rent was given by one of the officials.

The same was an internal communication of the Department that

too, in the form of an opinion only and could not have bound the

Department as the ultimate decision by the higher officials was to

continue the tenancy only on AUB. Learned counsel therefore

submitted that the finding on issue No.1 deserves interference by

this Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that even if it is assumed that the tenancy in pursuance to the

written agreement terminated/came to an end on 18.01.2015, the

[2023:RJ-JD:31808] (3 of 5) [CFA-167/2023]

rented premise was used by the defendant Department till June

2016 and the vacant possession of the same was handed over to

the respondent only on 20.06.2016 and therefore, the defendant

was very much liable to pay the rent qua the user period as

agreed at the time of commencement of the tenancy.

So far as the deposit of amount of Rs.9,81,722/- during the

interregnum period is concerned, learned counsel has not disputed

the said fact and submitted that an application for deduction of

the said amount has already been moved by the plaintiff firm

before the executing Court. Learned counsel submitted that the

decree in question be modified to that extent.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. It is admitted on record that the tenancy in question was

entered into vide written agreement dated 18.01.2013. The

tenancy was for a period of one year which was extendable and

hence extended for a further period of one year in writing. It is

also an admitted fact that the agreed guaranteed rent for the

premise in question was Rs.4,77,576/- per month and also that

even after the expiry of period of two years on 18.01.2015, the

defendant Department continued to use the premise in question

and handed over the vacant possession of the same only on

20.06.2016.

So far as the ground raised by the learned counsel for the

appellants that qua the period post 18.01.2015, the defendant

was liable to pay the rent on Actual Utilisation Basis only is

concerned, the same does not warrant any consideration by this

Court as the finding on the said issue by the Court below is totally

[2023:RJ-JD:31808] (4 of 5) [CFA-167/2023]

in consonance with law. This Court is of the clear opinion that no

landlord or owner of the property can be forced to enter into an

agreement contrary to his choice. Admittedly, the tenancy

commenced in pursuance of a written agreement specifying the

rent payable monthly. The agreement did not specify/comprise of

any clause qua the rent payable after the completion of the

stipulated period of tenancy. In absence of any clause/condition in

the agreement, any change/determination in/of payable rent

unilaterally, by the department, could not have bound the landlord

plaintiff, moreso when the request of the department to extend

the agreement on AUB was clearly refused by the plaintiff firm.

The continuance of possession and user of the premise by the

defendant despite refusal of extension of agreement, clearly

amounted to an acquiescence for the agreed rent.

Had the Department not intended to continue the tenancy on

agreed rent, it was open for it to handover the vacant possession

of the premise in question soon after the expiry of the stipulated

period on 18.01.2015. Admittedly, the possession was not handed

over and the premise was used till 20.06.2016. The Department

was therefore, definitely under an obligation to pay the rent at the

agreed rate for the said period and hence, finding of the Court

below on issue No.1 to that extent cannot be interfered with.

However, as admitted, the fact of deposit of Rs.9,81,722/- by

the Department was not brought into the knowledge of the Court

below and therefore, the said amount has not been adjusted

towards the decreetal amount. In view of the same, the impugned

decree, to that extent, deserves to be modified.

[2023:RJ-JD:31808] (5 of 5) [CFA-167/2023]

The documents reflecting the deposit of the said amount

submitted along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC

are taken on record.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The

impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent that the

plaintiff firm is held entitled to receive an amount of

Rs.26,79,694/- from the defendant/respondent department. The

decree qua the interest stands affirmed.

Let the decree be drawn accordingly.

9. The stay petition and the pending applications, if any also

stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 185-Vij/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)