ZAREEF KHAN AND ORS. Vs. MUKHTAR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenants second appeal from the decision of the Civil Judge, Allahabad decreeing the landlords' suit for their ejectment. It raises several questions of law involving the interpretation of Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Sec. 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act.

(2.) The material facts are these. The defendants appellants were the tenants of a house in Allahabad known as no. 4 Tazia Kalan of which the plaintiff respondent Mukhtar Ahmad is the owner and landlord. The parties reside in the same postal area of the city. The rent was Rs. 17/3.00 per month, the tenancy commencing from the 12th day of the calendar month. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had sublet the accommodation without his consent, caused material damage to the house, and defaulted in payment of rent and he had obtained the permission of the District Magistrate to eject them. The permission under Sec. 3 was set aside by the Commissioner and the allegation about subletting and causing damage was disbelieved by both the Courts below, and the only question in this appeal is whether there was any default in rent. The plaintiff alleged that eleven months' rent from 12th Aug. 1954 had not been paid and on 13th July 1955 he sent by registered post a notice of demand for Rs. 193/11/- which the tenants failed to pay within the prescribed period of one month. He then terminated the tenancy and filed the present suit for ejectment. The defendants resisted the suit and denied that they had sub-let or damaged the accommodation or committed any default in payment of rent. They alleged that they had paid certain municipal taxes on behalf of the landlord which should have been adjusted, and that they regularly remitted the rent which was always refused by the landlord, and then deposited in Court under Sec. 7-C and that their final remittance was also refused by the landlord.

(3.) The trial court held that the defendant had not sub-let the accommodation nor committed any default in payment of rent and dismissed the suit for ejectment. On appeal by the landlord the appellate Judge confirmed the finding that there had been no sub-letting and no damage to the accommodation and accepted the version of the defendant-appellants that on the date when the landlord sent his notice of demand a sum of Rs. 92/11/- only was due to him and he refused a Money Order for Rs. 70.00 remitted by the defendants on 14th July 1955. But nevertheless he adjudged the defendants defaulters because they did not tender the balance of Rs. 22/11/- within one month of service of notice of demand. He allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. The defendants have come to this Court in Second appeal.