KIRAN BAHADUR SINGH Vs. HARIKRISHAN MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant tenant's appeal from a decree of the ap pellate Court evicting him from a house in suit and awarding arrears of rent and damages in favour of the plaintiffs land lords. The trial Court dismissed the plain tiffs' suit but the lower appellate Court by reversing the trial Court decreed the suit.

(2.) SRI Gopal Behari, learned coun sel appearing for the defendant appellant agitated a large number of questions of law in support of the appeal, but I think for the purpose of deciding this appeal I need not notice all the grounds urged in support of the appeal except the one on the question of the defendant tenant hav ing failed to pay the arrears of rent de manded by the plaintiffs-landlords by a notice under Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, as my answer to that question would be conclusive of the appeal.

(3.) AS already said above, I am not inclined to consider the arguments ad vanced on behalf of the appellant on the question of maintainability of the suit though there may be some tenability in those arguments since I have, on a consi deration of the material on record and after hearing the able arguments of the learned counsel for the bar, come to the conclusion that the findings of the lower appellate Court on the question of com pliance by the tenant with the notice of demand of arrears of rent are untenable and liable to be reversed. The first point which I considered was as to the correct ness of the finding of fact recorded by ihe court below on the factum of the arrears of rent having been tendered to Deodutt Gupta, the admitted Karinda of the land lords at Agra on 6-12-1966. Deodutt Gupta was produced as a witness by the plain tiffs landlords. He stated that neither the tenant nor anybody on his behalf came and tendered to him the arrears of rent on fi-12-1966. The defendant tenant himself appeared as a witness and stated that on 6-12-1966 he had gone to the house of Karinda at Agra and tendered the arrears of rent to Deodutt but he declined to ac cept the same for the reason that notices had already been served upon the tenant by the landlords and advised that the ten ant should deal with the landlords direct in the matter. Mr. G. N. Shiromani, an Advocate and colleague of the defendant tenant at the bar in Agra, also appeared as a witness and corroborated the statement of the defendant The learned Mun-sif believed this evidence adduced on be half of the defendant tenant and discarded the testimony of Deodutt. A finding was recorded by the learned Munsif that on 6-12- 1966 the defendant tenant tendered the arrears of rent to the Karinda of the landlords who refused to accept the same. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court preferred to rely on the evidence of Deodutt, the Karinda, and rejected the testimony of the defendant and his witness Sri G. N. Shiromani. The finding was re versed and it was held that no tender of any arrears of rent was made by the de fendant tenant on 6-12-1966 to the Karinda of the landlords at Agra. This is a finding of fact binding in second appeal unless it were shown that it was vitiated by any error of law or procedure.