SHYAM SUNDER Vs. SETH BALMUKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals by a defendant from the decisions respectively of the Additional District Judge, Meerut and the Judge Small Cause Court (functioning as Civil Judge) decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for recovery of rent and compensation for use and occupation of a house. The facts are these. The defendant appellants are owners of the house. They borrowed a sum of Rs. 3200/- from the plaintiff respondent and executed a usufructuary mortgage of the house in his favour. Simultaneously they executed a rent note under which they became his tenants and continued to reside in the house for payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/-per month. The rent was not paid for several years and the plaintiff filed a suit in 1951 for the recovery of six years' rent and compensation for use and occupation. This is suit No. 394 of 1951. Even after the filing of this suit the rent remained unpaid and in 1955 the plaintiff filed a second suit for the recovery of rent and compensation for use and occupation for the period upto 17th of January 1955.

(2.) The defendants resisted both the suits and pleaded inter alia that the rent note did not create any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but merely provided for a method of paying Interest under the mortgage that the defendants were entitled to the benefit of Sections 32 and 39 of the Agriculturists Relief Act; that in any case, the defendants had redeemed the mortgage with effect from 12th of October 1954 and no rent was due after that date.

(3.) In each suit the pleas of the defendants were accepted by the trial Court and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed from both decisions and in each appeal the lower Court, held that the transaction between the parties under the rent note was that of landlord and tenant and the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the Agriculturists Relief Act. It, however, accepted the plea of the defendants that no rent or damages for compensation were due after 12th of October 1954 when the mortgage was redeemed. It allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit with the slight modification indicated above. The defendants have now come to this Court in second appeal. Both the appeals were connected and are being disposed of together by this judgment.