HUKAM CHAND Vs. MUNSHI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's Second Appeal. He was a tenant of the house in dispute at Rs. II/4/- per month. In the rent note there was a condition that the landlord would be liable to make all the repairs necessary for the house and pay house and water taxes. The house needed repairs and the tenant sent a notice to make the necessary repairs but the landlord did not care to do so. Ultimately the tenant got the repairs done and the trial Court has accepted that a sum of Rs. 190/was spent by the tenant on the repairs. The lower appellate Court has not upset that finding and has proceeded upon the assumption that a sum of Rs. 190/- was spent. The plaintiff gave notice demanding Rs. 78/12/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 19/8/- as compensation for use and occupation after termination of the tenancy on the Ist of March, 1953. The defendant did not pay nor did he vacate the house. Hence the suit was filed. Among other things the defendant contended that he had spent Rs. 190/- on repairs which he was entitled to deduct from the rent and he was not a defaulter.

(2.) Both the Courts below have disallowed this plea on the ground that the defendant was not entitled to deduct more than one month's rent as provided by Section 7-E (3) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The Courts therefore found that the balance of arrears of rent was still due and since the defendant did not pay the same within one month from the date of notice, he was liable to ejectment. The Courts below have therefore granted a decree for ejectment and Rs. 91/-for arrears of rent and future pendente lite and mesne profits.

(3.) Against this decree the present Second Appeal has been filed in this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Courts below were wrong in applying the provisions of Section 7-E (3) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act when rights of the parties were governed bySection 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.