G.H. MANJULA Vs. SRI. KAMALLUDDIN ALIAS KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act arises from the judgment and decree dated 19.6.1999 passed by the XII Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, decreeing the Plaintiff's claim in Small Causes case No. 874 of 1998. The trial Court granted the decree for a sum of Rs. 22,696.00 and also awarded interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The Plaintiff's case has been that the Defendant had been the Plaintiff's tenant and the Plaintiff has been the owner of the property in dispute and under the agreement executed between them, the Defendant took the premises in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 500.00. There is no dispute among the parties so far as above facts are concerned. According to the Plaintiff's case, the Defendant did not pay the rent regularly and according to the Plaintiff's case from September 1, 1997 the Defendant had not paid any amount towards rent. The Plaintiff therefore contended that the Defendant has been liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 towards arrears of rent and a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 towards interest and a sum of Rs. 2,696.00 towards electricity charges. Therefore, in all he has claimed Rs. 23,695.00 from the Defendants being the arrears of rent and electricity charges as on 31.12.1997. The Plaintiff's case is that the Plaintiff gave a legal notice on 19.1.1998 calling upon the Defendant to pay the rent. But inspite of notice being issued, he did not pay, but gave a reply as per Ex.P -4. The Plaintiff further alleged that as the Defendant withheld the rent without any reason, hence the Defendant shall be liable to pay the interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. till the payment of entire rent. The premises was leased for business purposes.

(2.) THE Defendant contested the Plaintiff's claim and he denied that he was a defaulter and had not paid rent from 30.6.1997. The Defendant denied that he was in arrears of any rent. The Defendant further asserted that a sum of Rs. 1,001.00 was given in advance and a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 by cheque which cheque had been encashed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant took the plea that Plaintiff had to supply 20 HP power connection. But that was not supplied in time. The Plaintiff required the Defendant to pay additional sum of Rs. 15,000.00 and the Defendant had paid additional sum of Rs. 14,000.00 on 18.9.1997 by cheque. The Defendant asserted that because of non -supply of 20 HP power connection, the Defendant had to suffer a lot of loss and could not carry on his business properly. The Defendant further alleged that the Plaintiff has been liable to return Rs. 30,000.00 and cash amount of Rs. 1,001.00 and additional sum of Rs. 14,000.00 paid to him. He further alleged that the Plaintiff was liable to pay compensation to the Defendant to the tune of Rs. 45,000.00. The Defendant's case has been that to avoid and to cover up his laches, the Plaintiff has issued notice with false claims in order to counter balance the claim of the Defendant. It may be mentioned that the Defendant has not set up any counter claims in the written statement. In paragraph 10 of the written statement, he has taken a plea amongst others saying that the Plaintiff having acknowledged the letters sent by the Defendant and having failed and neglected to arrange for supply of power, on 14.11.1997 the Defendant vacated the industrial shed and handed over the possession to the Plaintiff and thus ceased to be the tenant.

(3.) NO point of dispute appears to have been framed and tried to the effect namely, whether the Defendant had vacated the disputed premises on 14.11.1997? But, no doubt, though issue was not framed, the trial Court had recorded the finding taking the view that except for his statement, the Defendant has not produced any evidence including that of his workers to prove that he had vacated the disputed premises on 14.11.1997. When attention of the Court was no doubt invited to Ex.D -7 and Ex.D -8, the Court appears to have cursorily observed that by these letters primarily a demand was made to the Plaintiff to provide power connection and though no doubt the Defendant has stated that he informed the Plaintiff that he will hand over possession of the premises to the Plaintiff, but Defendant demanded back the advance amount etc., and then the Court observes that it is important to note that no tenant will vacate the premises unless and until he receives back the advance amount and taking this view, the Court below opined that Plaintiff is entitled to rent for four months namely September, October, November and December. It opined that burden was on the Defendant to prove that he had vacated the premises and held that the Defendant failed to adduce the material evidence even of his witnesses. The decision has been challenged in this Court by filing this revision under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act.