RAMA KANT GUPTA Vs. RAMESHWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5-8-1783 passed by learned Special Judge Additional District Judge, Bareilly, in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1982, by which the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 400 of 1979, for ejectment of the Defendant-Appellant and for realisation of the arrears of rent and mesne profits with interest has been confirmed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Plaintiff Rameshwar Das leased out a Khandsar (a khandasari unit for manufacturing of kbandsari sugar from sugarcane along with necessary machinery and equipments and some buildings also on 7-12-1959 under a registered rent deed, on payment of Rs. 3000/- as yearly rent. Though the rent deed was executed for a period of ten months 17 days, the tenancy thereafter continued on the basis of holding over on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the rent deed. Plaintiff respondent by a notice dated 25-7-1978 terminated the tenancy and required the Defendant Appellant to vacate the premises in dispute and deliver vacant possession on expiry of six months from the date of service of notice It was also stated that on failure, the Defendant Appellant will be liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day from the date of the termination of the tenancy. This notice was served on the Defendant Appellant on 27-7-1978. He replied the notice on 21-8-1978 and refuted the contents of the notice. As in response to the notice, the premises in dispute were not vacated, Rameshwar Das filed a suit on 19-11-1979 for ejectment and for realisation of arrears of rent and compensation/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20 per day. In para 7 of the plaint, be claimed Rs. 735/- as rent for the period from 31-10-1978 to 26-1-1979 and further a sum of Rs. 5880/- as mesne profits from 27-1-1979 to the date of the filing of the suit, i.e. 19-11-1979 at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day. Thus, the total amount claimed was Rs. 6615/-.

(3.) For purposes of this appeal, in my opinion, the other facts mentioned in the plaint are not necessary to be reproduced which have already been set out in detail in the judgments of the two courts below.