SUNDER LAL Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant a application in revision. The opposite party, Ram Sarup, who was the plaintiff in the suit sued the defendant for recovery of Rs. 800 as damages caused to his wooden shop which the applicant had taken on rent from the plaintiff. The Court below held him liable to make good the loss on the ground that there is a special contract regarding liability for losses in para. 3 of the agreement. Admittedly the loss which has taken the shape of the destruction of the wooden shop which the defendant was using as his betel shop was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant. According to the learned Judge, the defendant who is a betel seller and had hired the shop on rent for selling betels took all the care which can reasonably be demanded from a person in dealing with his own property. The loss sustained by the wooden shop was due to a communal riot which occurred in Meerut and for which the defendant, in no way, is responsible. Shops and houses were set on fire by goondas on account of communal frenzy and one of the shops burnt was that which the defendant was occupying. On the findings of the learned Judge, it is perfectly clear that the defendant was not directly or indirectly responsible for the loss sustained by the shop. The short point, therefore, in this case is whether the defendant applicant is under any special contractual obligation, apart from his liability under Section 151, Contract Act, to make good the loss occasioned to the shop. The general rule of law regarding the liability of a bailee is laid down in Section 151, Contract Act, which I reproduce below :

(2.) In this case the terms on which the shop was rented were reduced to writing and the plaintiff's case reats upon the interpretation of para. 3 of the agreement which is marked Ex. A1 and runs as follows :

(3.) It will be clear that the question is not free from some difficulty. I am, however, inclined to the view that the language of the agreement should not be regarded as casting upon the bailee the liability for loss of or injury to the goods entrusted to him without any reference to his own fault. I would, therefore, hold that he is not liable under the terms of the contract for the destruction of the shop as this destruction was not due to any negligence on his part. He was as much the victim of circumstances as the bailor. Nothing that he could do could have prevented the mischief from happening and it strikes me that when the agreement was entered into, neither he nor the bailor could have foreseen or contemplated a situation such as has arisen in this case, namely, the destruction of the wooden shop by a communal mob.