HARISH CHAND KHAREY Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's Second Appeal. The Second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of judgment and decree dated 15th Oct., 1982 delivered by the II Addl. District Judge, Hardoi (Shri V.N. Mehrotra) dismissing the defendant - appellant First Appeal, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1982 and affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th Jan., 1982 passed by Shri Kishore Kumar, Vth Additional Munsif, decreeing the plaintiff's claim in Regular Suit No. 224 of 1981 (Smt. Sunder Devi Vs. Harish Chand Kharey) for the decree for ejectment of defendant-appellant from house in dispute as well as for recovery of Rs. 800.00 as arrears of rent as well as for recovery of pendente lite and future mesne profits. Rs. 50.00 per month.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit with the allegations to the effect that the house in dispute situate in Mohalla Whiteganj, Hardoi as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint was purchased by Mata Deen by the sale-deed dated July 27, 1909 and after Mata Deen's death, Naunihal Singh, husband of plaintiff No. 1 i.e father of plaintiff-respondent No. 2 inherited the same with possession and on the death of Naunihal Singh, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff respondent, the present plaintiff-respondent succeeded to the interest, rights and title in the property with possession. The plaintiff-respondent further alleged that defendant-appellant Harish Chand had been his near relation of the plaintiff. That defendant-appellant Harish Chand also used to look after the cultivation and other work relating to the Management of the applicant's property since long and so the defendant was allowed to use some portions of the house in dispute as a licensee. That thereafter some times in Sept. 1972, plaintiff No. 1 revoked the licence and on request being made by the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent let out the house in dispute on 1-10-72 to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rental of Rs. 50.00. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant thereafter paid the rent @ Rs. 50.00 per month till Dec., 1972 and thereafter avoided paying the rent on one pretext or other in spite of the same being demanded. In paragraph 10 of the plaint, it has also been asserted that the defendant caused lot of damages to the house in dispute resulting in disfiguring the same.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that on 16-11-77 the plaintiff issued a notice of demand for arrears of rent as well as of termination of tenancy under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which was served on the defendant on Nov. 21, 1977. In spite of the notice of termination of lease and of the demand, of arrears of rent having been served on the defendant, the defendant appellant did neither pay off the arrears of rent due from Jan. 1, 1973 nor vacated the premises. In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed the decree for ejectment and a decree for recovery of arrears of rent for a period of three years as well as he has made a claim for damages. The plaint is dated 30-5-1978. The suit had been filed originally in the Court of JSCC and later on it was returned for presentation to the Civil Court on the Regular side.