SARASWATI DEVI Vs. SARJOO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Smt. Saraswati Devi plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24-2- 1968 passed by the Civil ludge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow.

(2.) IT appears that Smt. Saraswati Devi filed a suit for ejectment of the res pondent Sarju Prasad from a certain shop on the allegation that he was her tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15, had been in arrears for four months, that he had failed to pay the arrears or to vacate the pre mises in spite of notice demanding pay ment of Rs. 100. The defendant-respon dent admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 10 per month and not Rs. 15. It was disputed that there was any default in the payment of rent. It was alleged that the defendant having remitted the rent through money orders and the plain tiff having refused the remittances there was no default. It was further contended that after refusal of these remittances the defendant had deposited the rent also in court. There was a denial of the service of notice. The trial Court found that the rate of rent was Rs. 10 and that the defen dant had committed default in payment of rent because at that rate the arrears for the period in question amounted to Rs. 40 whereas it was shown that only Rs. 30 were remitted to the plaintiff by money order and not Rs. 40. There was also an argument raised at the trial that the de fendant had deducted Rs. 10 towards the expenses of repairs and white-washing and adjustment was claimed for this amount but this argument was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there was no proof of any contract or agreement by which any amount could be spent over repairs or white- washing. The suit for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 109 was decreed by the Munsif. The defendant appealed. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court with a direction that an opportunity shall be provided to the defendant to prove the notice said to have been served on the plaintiff before effecting repairs. It is this order of remand which is challenged be fore this Court.

(3.) WITH the above observations this appeal is dismissed. Costs are made easy. Appeal dismissed.