(1.) Concurrent findings notwithstanding, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a point of law which he cautioned, was not technical and insisted that the suit was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel on both sides have argued at length and rulings galore have been cited which undoubtedly shed not only light but also demonstrated how simple factual situations may present themselves with puzzling visages wearing legal masks. Even here, I may state that the best that could be done to transmute a technicality into a substantial point has been done by appellant's counsel and I shall proceed to consider what I regard are the essential questions which seek resolution in this case. At the outset I may also state that have always adopted the view - and do so here - that law is essentially an instrument of justice although it may occasionally be at logger heads with it and the endeavour of the court should be to grant relief where it is due unless compelled by legal obstacles.
(2.) The plaintiff brought the present suit praying for a decree for delivery of possession of the shop building scheduled to the plaint together with arrears of Q rent, Rs. 519. 86, calculated at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month, together with interest at 6%. The court fee paid and the allegations in the plaint leave no one in doubt that the suit was one by a lessor against his lessee. The tenancy relied on was a vadaka cheettu or rent bond dated 6-9-1967, marked Ext. A-1 in the suit. This deed is for a period of 7 months and reads like a lease although it is signed only by the defendant. It fixes a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The period having expired and a notice purporting to terminate the tenancy having been sent (vide Ext. A-2) the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to a decree for eviction with arrears of rent. The defendant in his written statement admits his possession and the execution of Ext. A-1, but pleads that the rate of rent has been wrongly shown as Rs. 50/- with ulterior purposes, the current rent being only Rs. 15/- and that notwithstanding Ext. A-1, I the clause fixing the rate of rent at Rs. 50/- has not been acted upon.
(3.) He has also pleaded discharge of rent. It is useful to extract a portion of the specific plea of the defendant relating to the lease. "The defendant begs to submit that the terms of the lease were that the defendant is liable to pay only Rs. 15/- per month for a term of 7 months." The defendant has also contended that long prior to Ext. A-1 he had been in possession for more than 10 years and that Ext. A-1 showing a higher rent was brought into existence more to help the plaintiff to find a better buyer for the building since he had intended to sell it. Indeed, both the courts have concurrently held that the defendant was in occupation of the suit-building for well over 10 years before Ext. A-1. The defendant himself gave evidence to the effect that the rent before Ext. A-1 was Rs. 15/- per month. The courts below, holding that Ext. A-1 was binding in all its terms on the defendant and negativing the plea of discharge of rent, decreed the suit as prayed for.