KESHAWDAS WADHUMAL ADVANI Vs. MURTAZA ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revisions under Section 115, Civil P. C. , and arise out of proceedings for fixation of rent under the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act 3 of 1947 ). The former is a revision by the plaintiff and the latter by the defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff, Dr. Keshodas Wadhumal Advani, according to the plaint allegations, is a displaced person from Sind, Western Pakistan and is a bona fide registered refugee in Lucknow. He needed accommodation for his residence and for his family members and relations. The defendant, Syed Murtaza Ali Khan is the owner of house styled as Crown Gate, No. 2393, Jagat narain Road, Lucknow. The plaintiff took a portion of this house consisting of 8 rooms with necessary quarters on 14th February 1948, at a rent of Rs. 170 per mensem and gave cheque of rs. 900 in advance. He paid this rent to the defendant for nearly 15 months upto 12th May 1949. The defendant told him that Rs. 170 per mensem was the monthly reasonable rent of the portion proposed to be let out to him, but he was unaware of the real rent and took the house on Rs. 170 p. m. as he was in sore need of accommodation. According to the plaintiff, the annual reasonable rent for 8 rooms was Rs. 600 per annum, as shown by the Municipal assessment record, and as he had taken only 7 rooms, the rent would be Rs. 48-12-0 per mensem, but since the house needed repairs, the rent should be fixed at Rs. 40 per mensem (see para, 6 of the plaint ). In para. 7 the plaintiff alleged that RS. 170 per mensem was very excessive and the transaction was very unfair. He accordingly sued for fixation of annual reasonable rent at Rs. 40 per mensem under Section 5 Sub-clause (4) of the Act. He also prayed that for purposes of rent the tenancy should be fixed from 14th February 1948.

(3.) THE suit was brought on lath August 1949 -. The short defence to the suit was that the house was constructed in 1947 and completed in April 1947. It was let out to one Pratap Singh on Rs. 175 per mensem in May 1947. The plaintiff' willingly agreed to take the house on RS. 170 per mensem, which he paid up to 12th May 1949, but later refused to pay and caused damage to the house. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff divided the house into four portions and sub-let three of them to three persons on Rs. 50 each and occupied the remaining portion himself. It was alleged that the newly constructed house was assessed by the Municipal Board for the first time on a total monthly rent of Rs. 170. It was pleaded that the rent agreed upon between the parties was reasonable and the plaintiff was not entitled to any abatement of rent.