B HORI LAL VARSHNEY Vs. PANDIT AMARNATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiff respondent Pandit Amar Nath Sharma is the owner of a garage attached to a house situate in mohalla Johnstonganj in the Allahabad city. A contract of tenancy on an annual basis was entered into between him and the defendant, where by the garags was given on an annual rent of Rs. 204/- to the defendant appellant for working an electric flour-mill. According to the terms of the contract, the tenancy was to begin from January 1, and to end on December 31, of every year. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant has been extremely negligent in working the flour-mill with the result that his building has sustained damage, His further case is that there is a real apprehension that if the defendant is allowed to continue the working of the mill in the garage, the building itself will collapse. It is on 'these allegations that the suit for ejectment and damages was brought by the plaintiff on April l8, 1947.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that it was not correct to assert that he had caused any damage to the garage in dispute, that the allegation that there was any apprehension of the building collapsing was without any foundation and that, in any case, the notice given to him was not legal. The defendant denied that any damage had been done to the garage in question.

(3.) The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, It came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not been able to establish that there was any real apprehension of danger to the building in dispute by the working of the flour-mill On the question of damages, the view of the learned Munsif was that that issue should be fought out in separate suit.