M V RAMANNA Vs. M N NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular first appeal is filed by the appellant who was the defendant in the Court-below under Section 96, CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 22-8- 1984 passed by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 48 of 1982, decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of money.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel forthe respondent fully and perused the records of the case.

(3.) The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,500/- on the ground that he is the owner of the premises bearing No. 141,13th Main, 27th Cross, 3rd Block East, Jayanagar, Bangalore, which consists of ground floor and first floor and the appellant was a tenant under him in respect of the first floor of the premises since July 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/- exclusive of light and water charges and he paid the rents upto the end of February 1980 and he vacated the premises on 19-8-1981 and he has not paid the arrears of rents from March 1980 to 19th August, 1981 and, therefore, he was due in a sum of Rs. 13,750/-. He also further contended that the appellant did not pay the arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 228-02 and also water charges of Rs. 63-60, and he caused damage to the water supply fittings and the respondent had to get it repaired at a cost of Rs. 350/- and, therefore, the defendant is due in a sum of Rs. 14,141-62 which the appellant has not paid in spite of repeated demands. The respondent has restricted his claim to a sum of Rs. 13,500/- in the suit. The appellant admitted that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question and he was the tenant of the first floor of the said premises. But, he denied that the monthly rent was Rs. 750/- or that it was exclusive of water and light charges. On the other hand, he has pleaded that the monthly rent was Rs. 175/- inclusive of water and light charges. Though he admitted that he was in possession of the first floor till 19-8-1981, he has denied that he was in arrears of rent from March 1980 to 19-8-1981. He has also denied that he caused any damage to the water fittings or that the respondent had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 350/- for getting it repaired. He has also contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit against him on account of the misunderstanding between his wife and the wife of the respondent. The trial court raised the following issues: