SHEO RATAN LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. MANOHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a revision under section 25 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act directed against the judgment and decree, dated 2-11-1985 passed by Special Judge (E. C. Act) Banda, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for ejectment of the petitioner Sheo Ratan Lal Srivastava from the premises in suit described at the end of the plaint, for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Manohar Lal filed a suit claiming these reliefs on the ground that the defendant, the sitting tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- had made a default in payment of rent due from 19-5-1981 inspite of the service of notice on him on 16-3-1982. The defendant contested the suit on the ground-

(3.) ON the first two points raised above, namely, as to the rate of rent and secondly, as to whether there was default in payment of arrears of rent, the findings of the Special Judge (E. C. Act) is based on the evidence on record. As to the rate of rent, according to Manohar Singh, the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 40/- per month, agreed to between Sheo Ratan Lal, petitioner and the respondents grand mother Smt. Piyaria. ON the other hand the defendant asserted vide paragraph 2 of the additional plea taken in the written statement that the agreed rent was Rs. 25/- per month. A few points may be mentioned. Firstly, the defendant in the written statement has not taken the case that originally the agreed rent was Rs. 20/- per month and it was enhanced to Rs. 25/-per month after about 3-4 years. Secondly, the oral evidence consisting of the statements of Shiv Ratan Lal DW 1 and Laxmi Narain are conflicting on these two points inasmuch as according to the defendant the agreed rent was enhanced in April 1976 and before 3-4 years before, it was only Rs. 20/- per month. But according to Laxmi Narain it was only in 1975 that the agreed rent was Rs. 20/- per month. It may be mentioned that Laxmi Narain was not present when the rent was enhanced. Thirdly, Shiv Ratan Lai, the defendant did not state that Laxmi Narain was present when the rent was originally agreed. In fact he stated that he has no evidence to establish that the agreed rent was Rs. 25/-per month. Lastly, though a notice of demand dated 16-1-1982 was served on the defendant claiming rent from 19th of May, 1981 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month, the defendant remained silent, the defendant's explanation as to why no reply was sent to this notice has been, rejected by the trial court for very good reason. Consequently, the plaintiff succeeded in establishing that the agreed rent was Rs. 40/- per month.