RAM PYARI Vs. IXTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Neeraj Agarwal, learned Counsel for petitioner. No one appears for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-respondents and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Prior to filing of the suit the landlord terminated the tenancy on 7. 1. 1978, by a composite notice demanding rent from 1. 6. 1976 to 31. 12. 1977 amounting to Rs. 1900/- @ Rs. 100/- per month. The tenant neither vacated the accommodation nor paid the rent, given rise to the suit.

(3.) IN the written statement the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had broken the three bailies supporting the roof of tin shed and broken the wall in the year 1976. In protest the defendant served a notice on the plaintiff and restored the roof and bailies and in doing so he incurred expenses of Rs. 3970/-which he is entitled to adjust in the rent. In his statement the tenant stated that he had given a notice to the landlord to put the roof but when the plaintiff-landlord did not do so even after notice dated 16. 8. 1976 within the stipulated time under section 28 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 he had to incur expenses for putting the tin shed. He filed receipts for purchase of bricks and payment of labour charges. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had removed the roof of the building and in the circumstances the tenant was entitled to replace the roof. Further, in such circumstances, the tenant was entitled to adjust the amount for which he had tendered the accounts.