B P SINHA Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal. The respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from flat No. 1 over bunglow No. 3 C. Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, and for recovery of Rs. 110/- as arrears of rent along with pendent lite and future mesne profits for use and occupation. The plaint allegations were that the acco mmodation in suit was constructed in the year 1958 and was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-, that the house being new, the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act did not apply, that as the de fendant did not pay rent, notice of demand and ejectment was issued to him, that on receipt of the notice the defendant paid the arrears of rent upto August 31, 1962, but did not vacate the house. Hence, the suit.

(2.) IN defence the appellant con tended that he was originally a tenant in the main bung low and the plaintiff wanted to let out the same to the Accountant-General, U. P., and so requested the appellant to shift to the accommodation in suit on the same terms and conditions as applied to the previous tenancy, that the plaintiff assured the defendant that the latter could live as long as he desired and receive the same facilities which he had enjoyed in the pre vious accommodation. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by the principle of es toppel and also by the terms of the agree ment of lease which were contained in a let ter. The appellant stated that he continu ed to pay rent regularly and had not ren dered himself liable to eviction.

(3.) THE cardinal point to be decided in this case is as to whether the respondent was entitled to eject the appellant in view of the agreement between the parties as ex pressed in the plaintiffs letter dated 17-6- 1958 (Exhibit A-3). The first subsidiary question on which ultimately the decision of this point would depend is as to the nature of the tenancy which came into existence subsequent to this letter. It may be made clear at this very stage that the stand of the appellant with regard to this letter is that it was an agreement to lease property and not the contract of the lease itself. That contention is borne out by the pleadings of the defendant in paragraph 26 of the written statement. It is the admitted case of the parties that the appellant was a tenant of the plaintiff in a portion of the main bung low, the plaintiff wanted to let out that bungalow to the Accountant-General and as such requested the appellant to shift to the accommodation in suit to which the defen dant agreed. It was in this connection that the plaintiff wrote the letter aforesaid (Exhi bit A-3) to the defendant, which is the sheet anchor of the appellant in the pre sent case. The letter may be rendered into English as follows:-