RADHEY LAL Vs. LARETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtors appeal. The suit in which the decree in execution was passed had been filed on September 17, 1945, for ejectment and arrears of rent at Rs. 3-8-0 per mensem from June 30, to September 9, 1945. The decree in the suit was passed with the consent of the parties on January 2, 1947. It provided that the judgment-debtor appellant would vacate the house by August 1, 1947, and that, if he did not do so, the decree-holder-respondent would be en-titled to execute the decree for ejectment. The decree-holder's right to execute the decree after this date was not subject to any con-dition whatsoever, inasmuch as he could claim the defendant's ejectment after that date with-out any restrictions. As regards the rent payable to the plaintiff-decree-holder it was agreed that the defendant was entitled to deduct the amount spent by him on repairs, that the said amount would be determined by one Mr. Raghubar Sahai raizada, counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the case and, lastly, that, if the amount so determin-ed exceeded the arrears due to the plaintiff, the excess would be set off against future rent, taut that, if it was less, it would proportionately reduce those arrears. Admittedly, no ascertainment of the amount spent by the defendant on repairs was made by Mr. Raghubar Sahai Raizada. The lower appel-late Court remarked in its judgment that the plaintiff had filed several applications alleging that her counsel had msde various attempts to go to the house in order to estimate the amount spent on repairs but that for some reason or other the defendant evaded the matter. This would at least show that Mr. Raghubar Sahai was not able to ascertain the amount entirely on ac-count of the dilatory tactics of the defendant.

(2.) ON August 5, 1947, the decree-holder-res-pondent applied for the execution of the decree for ejectment. Objections were taken to this ap-plication on the ground that, under Section 14, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 3 of 1947, no ejectment could be ordered.

(3.) A few days later, on August 25, 1947, the res-pondent gave a notice to the appellant, demand-ing Rs. 91/- as rent from June 30, 1945 to August 30, (obviously meaning 31) 1947. On september 15, 1947 the appellant sent to the respondent a money Order for Rs. 28/-, which the latter refus-ed to accept.