2006 (10) TMI 488 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to recovery of construction costs and advance amounts.
2. Validity of counterclaims and fair rent fixation.
3. Admissibility and comparison of disputed signatures.
4. Application of estoppel and res judicata principles.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Recovery of Construction Costs and Advance Amounts:
The Plaintiff, a tenant since 1972, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,38,141/- for construction costs and Rs. 1,49,700/- as advance, both with 24% interest p.a., and sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants. The trial court decreed that the Plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 12,225.42/- towards construction costs from Defendants 2 to 4 upon vacating the property but dismissed other claims. The counterclaim of the Defendants for Rs. 74,906/- with 12% interest p.a. was decreed. The lower appellate court confirmed this judgment.

2. Validity of Counterclaims and Fair Rent Fixation:
The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff was allowed to make alterations at a cost agreed to be repaid, but the Plaintiff exaggerated the amount. The 1st Defendant had filed RCOP.No.1947/1986 for fair rent fixation, which was set at Rs. 1,418/- p.m., later enhanced to Rs. 1,470/- p.m. by the appellate authority. The Plaintiff's appeal against this was dismissed. The counterclaim for Rs. 74,906/- was based on arrears calculated per the rent control decree. The court held that the counterclaim complied with O.VIII R.6A of CPC and was valid.

3. Admissibility and Comparison of Disputed Signatures:
The Plaintiff presented receipts (Exs.A3 to A6) for additional payments, which the Defendants denied. The trial court compared the signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and found discrepancies, concluding the receipts were forged. The Plaintiff's argument for expert comparison was dismissed as the court's comparison was deemed sufficient.

4. Application of Estoppel and Res Judicata Principles:
The court applied the principles of estoppel and res judicata, stating that the Plaintiff could not re-litigate issues already determined by the rent control proceedings. The Plaintiff had not challenged the rent control appellate order, thus the findings on Exs.A3 to A6 were final. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Hope Plantations Limited vs. Taluk Land Board, emphasizing the binding nature of judicial determinations to prevent re-litigation.

Conclusion:
The second appeal was dismissed as the findings of the lower courts were based on valid evidence, and no substantial question of law was involved. The Plaintiff was directed to pay the counterclaim amount after setting off the construction cost awarded.