CHOTEY LAL Vs. L CHHAKKILAL ALIAS HARI SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal from a decree for ejectment passed against him. The dispute is about a shop which admittedly was let out to the appellant by the plaintiff- respondent.

(2.) ON 24th February 1948 a decree for arrears of rent was passed against the appellant. Previous to the institution of that suit the respondent had given a notice for payment of the arrears and appellant had sent the arrears by money order, but the money order had been refused by the respondent. Consequently the decree was passed without costs. Subsequently rent again fell into arrear and the respondent gave a notice to the appellant demanding the arrears that has fallen due since the passing of the decree on 24th February 1948, and also the arrears decreed on that date. The appellant sent only the arrears that had fallen due subsequent to the passing of the decree, within the period of one month. He did not send the decreed arrears but deposited them in Court after a month. The respondent thereupon sued the appellant for ejectment from the shop contending that he had wilfully defaulted in paying the arrears within a month of the receipt of the notice demanding the same. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court which held that there was no wilful default on the part of the appellant but has been decreed by tho lower appellate court on the ground that he committed wilful default in not paying the decreed arrears. The lower appellate Court took tho view that the words 'arrears of rent' in Section 3 (a), Control of bent Act, include not only undecreed arrears, but also decreed arrears of rent.

(3.) TWO questions arise; (1) Whether the words 'arrears of rent' include decreed arrears of rent and (2) "whether the appellant committed wilful default.