KISHAN LAL Vs. LALA RAM BABOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendant's second appeal. Plaintiff brought a suit for the ejectment of the Defendant from a shop No. 6542/2 situated at M.G. Marg, Agra.

(2.) The suit was filed on the allegation that there were two adjoining shops Nos. 6542/2 and 6542/3, situated at Paoli, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Agra and the Defendant Appellant was a monthly tenant of both the shops. The shop in dispute namely 6542/2 was let out to the Defendant about 40 years ago on a rent of Rs. 5/ - per month. The other shop namely 6542/3 was let out to the Defendant in the year 1947. Plaintiff had filed a suit for ejectment of the Defendant from shop No. 6542/3 which had been decreed by the court below. According to the plaint allegation there was a partition wall between the two shops Nos. 6542/2 and 6542/3, which the Defendant demolished and appropriated the bricks thereof. This act of demolition of the wall caused substantial damage to the accommodation in question and also amounted to a material alteration therein. Defendant therefore rendered himself liable to ejectment. He also fell in arrears of rent from 10th May, 1959 and a notice of demand coupled with a notice terminating his tenancy was given to him on 23rd June 1960 by registered post. This notice was returned unserved with the remark that the addressee had left the place without leaving any address. Thereupon another notice was sent to him on 21st July 1960 asking him to clear the arrears of rent within a month and to vacate the premises on the expiry of 30 days of the receipt of notice. Inspite of service of this notice the Defendant neither cleared the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. In the circumstances the Plaintiff has been compelled to file the present suit.

(3.) The Defendant resisted the claim of the Plaintiff on the ground that he had deposited rent of the accommodation in dispute in the court of Munsif Agra under the provisions of Sec. 7C of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act as the Plaintiff refused to accept the same. He denied that he made any default in payment of arrears of rent and asserted that the notice to quit was invalid. According to him there was a partition wall made of Bamboo Tatti to the extent of half of the length in the room dividing the two shops and that he did not demolish it. He therefore urged that he neither damaged nor materially altered the building and therefore the suit for his ejectment was barred by the Control of Rent and Eviction Act.