KOHINOOR CABLE INDUSTRIES Vs. DAYA NAND GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants from house No. 318 Balupura Ramate Ram Road, Ghaziabad and for arrears of rent. Their case was that the defendants were in arrears from 1.8.1982 to 31.12.1972. A notice of demand was sent to them. The defendants remitted a sum of Rs. 1000/- by money order, thereafter suit No. 77 of 1973 was filed in court of IInd Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad for recovery of arrears of rent and future damages. The suit was 'compromised on 11.1.1974. At the time of the compromise it was orally stated by the defendants that they had deposited a sum of Rs. 2400/-. The compromise to the effect that the plaintiff would withdraw the rent deposited by defendants and that arrears or rent would be payable at the rate of Rs. 200/- upto 31st January, 1974 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. After the decision of that case it appears that since only a sum of Rs. 2000/- was deposited by the applicant, there still remained an arrears of Rs. 400/-. The instant suit was filed for recovery of that specified sum of Rs. 400/- as per the compromises, and future arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 35/- as water charges. It was alleged that despite notice the defendants had not paid the arrears nor vacated the premises, as such the defendants were liable to ejectment.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that no statement was made by him in the earlier suit that he had deposited Rs. 24000/-. As a matter of fact they had only deposited Rs. 2000/- for which tenders had been filed. The rent of Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 35/- as water charges was sent through money order after receipt of the notice which was refused by the plaintiff. The defendants deposited the rent etc. in court on the first date of hearing on 2.4.1979 as required under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Some other pleas were also raised in defence. The suit of the plaintiff, therefore, was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. The applicant's counsel has made two submissions. His first submission is that the amount of Rs. 400/- which was claimed as arrears of rent could not form the subject-matter of a cause of action arising in the instant suit for the ejectment of the defendants. He argued that for the enforcement of that liability a separate suit ought to have been instituted. Learned counsel has submitted his argument on the basis of a Supreme Court decision, Ramdeo v. Umrao, 1980(1) RCR(Rent) 473 (SC) : 1979 AWC 737. In that case a sum of Rs. 600/- was due from the appellant to the respondent as arrears of rent. An agreement was executed between the parties for the payment of arrears. It appears that inspite of the contract the appellant fell in arrears. In these circumstances it was held by the Supreme Court that :