LAWS(ALL)-1951-10-10

KESHODASS WADHUMAL ADVANI Vs. SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN

Decided On October 29, 1951
KESHODASS WADHUMAL ADVANI Appellant
V/S
SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of a judgment, delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court in two connected Civil Revisions, filed under Section 115, Civil P. C. on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and also on the ground that there is other sufficient cause for granting the review. On behalf of the opposity party a preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the application on the ground that there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, nor is there any other sufficient cause for granting a review. This objection relates to the merits of the application and will be dealt along with the merits of the case.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the aforesaid revisions were these: The applicant, Sri Keshodass Wadhumal Advani, who is a displaced person from Sind in West Pakistan and is a registered refugee in Lucknow, needed accommodation for his residence. On 14th February 1948, he rented a portion of the house, described as Crown Gate, No. 2393, on the Jagat Narain Road, Lucknow, belonging to the opposite party, Syed Murtaza Ali Khan, on BS. 170 per mensem and paid Rs. 900 in advance. The applicant continued to pay the agreed rent for nearly 15 months, after which disputes arose between the parties.

(3.) It appears that the applioant subsequently realised that the agreed rent was excessive and the transaction of rent was unfair. Accordingly, on 13th August 1949, he instituted a suit in the Court of Munsif, North Lucknow, for fixation of rent under Sub-section (4) of Section 5, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III [3] of 1947. In the suit filed by the applicant it was alleged in the plaint that the opposite-party had represented to him that the monthly reasonable rent of the accommodation let out to him was Rs. 170 per mensem; that according to the municipal assessment the reasonable annual rent of the accommodation was Rs. 600 and on that basis the monthly rent worked out to Rs. 50; that, as the applicant was not given possession over one of the eight rooms let out to him, the reasonable rent of the accommodation actually in his occupation worked out to Rs. 43-8-0 per mensem: and that as the opposite party had failed to carry out the necessary repairs according to his promise the rent of the accommodation be fixed at Rs. 40 per mensem. In the oral pleadings recorded on the date of issues, it was stated on behalf of the applicant: