BASANT LAL KATYAL Vs. BOORA RAM KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 120/- as arrears of rent together with mesne profits, as also for possession by ejectment of the defendant from the premises in sun which has been described as No. 1488, Hing Ki Mandi, Agra. There is no controversy between the parties that the plaintiffs were the land-lords of the property of which the defendant-appellant was the tenant and that a valid notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant had been served upon the defendant. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant had fallen in arrears whereafter a notice demanding payment of arrears was served upon the defendant, but the defendant did not comply with the notice and had, therefore, rendered himself liable to ejectment at the suit of the plaintiffs. The defence was that the defendant-appellant was not in arrears in respect of the amount demanded by the plaintiffs from the defendant under the notice of demand, the assertion of the defendant being that he had paid to the Municipal Board, under notices served by the Municipal Board upon the defendant demanding payment of municipal taxes due to the Municipal Board in respect of buildings of the plaintiffs, including the premises in suit, a sum larger than the amount demanded by the plaintiff under the notice of demand.

(2.) The only question with which we are concerned In this second appeal is whether the defendant appellant was entitled to claim deduction of the amounts paid by him to the Municipal Board in pursuance of the demands made by the Municipal Board upon the defendant for taxes. The Courts below took the view that the defendant appellant was not entitled to deduct those amounts with the result that the plaintiffs' suit for possession by ejectment of the defendant stands decreed on the finding that the defendant appellant had failed to comply with the notice of demand served upon-him by the plaintiff.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has urged before, me that, on the findings recorded by the Court below, the defendant-appellant's claim that he was entitled to deduct the amounts paid by him to the Municipal Board was perfectly made out, and that the Court below erred in taking the contrary view.