SOHAN LAL KHARBANDA Vs. DR. SRI RAM SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the Defendant arises out of a suit for ejectment.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. It is admitted that the Defendant -Appellant is a tenant of a house situate in the city of Lucknow of which the Plaintiff -Respondent is the landlord. It appears that the Defendant has been a tenant of this house for a long time on a monthly rent of Rs. 37/8/. The Plaintiff -Respondent based his suit for ejectment of the Defendant on the ground that the Appellant had made a wilful default in paying rent of the premises. It was alleged, and the fact is not disputed that before the suit was brought the Plaintiff had served a notice of demand on the Appellant to pay the arrears for the period beginning from 1 -10 -1947, to October 1949. The Appellant having failed to pay up the arrears, the suit was brought.

(3.) THE trial Court as also the lower appellate Court repelled this contention of the Appellant. Both the Courts held on an interpretation of the provision of Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act that non -payment of arrears of rent which had become time -barred would entitle the landlord to sue for ejectment under the provisions of the said section. The Courts below came to this conclusion on a reading of Section 3(a) of the Control of Rent and Eviction. Act, which is as follows: