LALA RAM NARAIN Vs. GANESHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal against the decree and judgment dated 19 -5 -1966 of the II Additional Civil Judged, Aligarh in Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1966 (original suit No. 432 of 1964). The Plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The trial court had dismissed the entire suit but in appeal the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 353.75 P. was decreed but his claim for ejectment was dismissed. This appeal was filed against the decree rejecting the claim for ejectment. Ganeshi Lal Defendant had died. He had been substituted by his heirs. Sri A.N. Bhargava learned Counsel represented them.

(2.) IN this case the facts are that Ganeshi Lal was a tenant of Lala Ram Narain on monthly rent of Rs. 22/ -besides water charges. On 5 -8 -1955 Rs. 300/ - had become due against him as arrears of rent. Out of this amount he paid only Rs. 30/ - within three years and executed another bond admitting his liability to pay the amount with interest for Rs. 270/ - on 24th December, 1958 and then lastly this bond was renewed again on 23 -12 -1961. It appears that he had paid the monthly rents which accrued after the execution of these bonds but four months' rent had again fallen due upto savan sudi 15 samvat 2021 and Rs. 58 had fallen due as water charges and Rs. 31.20 P. as bhumi and bhawankar. On the bond which was in existence at that time Rs. 347/ - was due. The Plaintiff then gave a legal notice for payment of arrears of rent and he demanded the money of the bond also alongwith the other arrears of rent which had fallen due at that time, and which was also for more than three months. The Defendant paid the other arrears of rent within one month from the date of receipt of the notice but he did not pay Rs. 347/ - of the money of bond and little more on account of registry charge etc. The total amount of Rs. 353 -75 P. thus remained unpaid.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the case of Kandaswamy Gounder v. K.P. Sivasubra : AIR 1963 Mad 16, on the following passage: