LAWS(DLH)-1984-12-46

HARISH CHANDER Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

Decided On December 04, 1984
HARISH CHANDER Appellant
V/S
KRISHAN KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision has arisen out of an order dated 8.12.77 of Sub Judge whereby it was held that the agreed rent of Rs. 30.00 p.m. for the premises in dispute included electric charges as well.

(2.) So far as the status of Krishan Kumar as tenant under Harish Chander, plaintiff in the premises in dispute, the same is admitted. So also the rate of rent. The tenant has, however, asserted that the agreed rent of Rs. 30 p.m. includes electric charges for the electricity which he consumes in the demised premises. This is refuted by the land-lord, and hence this litigation upto this Court.

(3.) It may be relevant to mention that earlier the learned Sub Judge came to the same view that the rent included electric charges. This was in the judgment dated 21.10.1975 when the landlord's suit for the recovery of Rs. 1080.00 towards arrears of rent from 1.12.1971 to 30.11.1974 was decreed. During the course of that judgment the observation was made that the rent of Rs. 30 p.m. included electric chages. The landlord felt aggrieved by that observation, and, therefore, sought review and pointed out that certain important documents on record which purported to contain admissions of the tenant were not taken into account. That review application was rejected by the trial court, and then the landlord filed a revision before this Court which was decided on 20.5.1977 by V.S. Deshpande. J. (as His Lordship then was). It was observed that the judgment of the trial court was vitiated on account of an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as documentary evidence which had the implication of an admission on the part of the tenant and which should have been an important piece of evidence, was not taken into account. Three of the documents Ex. P.1, Ex. D.1 and Ex. D. 2 where required to be considered by the trial court, as such the matter was sent back for their consideration by the trial court. It was thereafter that the impugned order confirming the view earlier taken, was passed.