GOPALJI MAHARAJ Vs. SHIAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for possession over a shop & some land adjoining the shop & also for recovery of Rs. 962 as arrears of rent trill the date of institution of the salt. A permanent Lease of the said shop and land was granted by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff to the defendant on 23-5-1927, at an annual rent of Rs. 150 payable half yearly. The lease provided that, in default of payment of three successive instalments, the lessee would be entitled to re enter upon the property. Admittedly, rent was paid till 31-12-1937, after which the defendant made no payments at all. The suit giving rise to the appeal was filed on 31-5-1944, for the reliefs I have already mentioned.

(2.) In defence, it was pleaded that the defendant had been dispossessed by the plaintiff in 1937 from a major portion of the adjoining land & that therefore, under what is known as the rule of suspension of payment of rent, the defendant was not liable to pay anything at all. After the written statement had been filed, an application was made by the plaintiff that he might be award-ed at least a proportionate amount as rent for that part of the leased premises which was still in the possession of the defendant.

(3.) The trial Court, holding that the plaintiff had dispossessed the defendant from a portion of the land, as pleaded by the latter, decreed the suit only for a proportionate amount at the rate of Rs. 60 per year, in all for Rs. 390 dismissing the rest of the claim. On appeals by both the parties, the entire suit was dismissed on the finding that the rule of suspension of rent applied in the present case, and that, therefore, there was no alternative but to dismiss the suit in toto.