SANUAL WILLIAM Vs. BIPIN BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act and arises out of a suit instituted by the opposite party for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and for ejectment from the house forming subject-matter of the suit.

(2.) A suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff was landlord of the house while the defendant was the tenant thereof, that he had fallen in arrears of rent and despite a notice of demand and ejectment had failed to comply with it. According to the plaintiff the house had been constructed prior to the coming into force of T.P. Act XIII of 1972 and consequently that Act had no application. The suits was resisted by the defendant on various pleas. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) Issue No. 1 was not pressed before the trial Court and was consequently decided in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding issue No. 2 the trial Court came to the conclusion, on the evidence led before it that the suit constructions had been made in the year 1968 and consequently U.P. Act XIII of 1972 had no application. While deciding issue No. 3 which arose because of a claim made by the defendant that he had spent an amount of about Rs. 8,000/- in order to make the house habitable and there was an agreement between the parties that the defendant will be entitled to be re-imbursed for the expenses, the trial Court held that the agreement set up by the defendant had not been proved. The notice of ejectment, Ext. 15, was held to be valid. Issue No. 5 arose because of a claim made by the defendant that he was entitled to adjust an amount of one month's rent per year for re-decoration or whitewashing etc., as a result of agreement between the parties. The Court below held that in fact the defendant had spent no amount over whitewashing etc., and consequently was not entitled to be re-imbursed for any amount assuming that there was an agreement as claimed by him. The plaintiff's assertion that he was entitled to claim damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month was repelled by the trial Court and it was held that the plaintiff could claim damages for use and occupation only at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month which was the agreed rent. While deciding issue No. '7', the trial Court held that the defendant had failed to prove that he had paid any excess water charges and consequently issue No. 7 was decided in the negative and against the defendant. In the result, the suit for ejectment of the defendant-applicant was decreed. The defendant was given four months' time to vacate the accommodation in dispute failing which the plaintiff was declared to take possession through Court. The claim of the landlord of Rs. 1,020/- as arrears of rent for the period from 1st July, 1975 to 8th September, 1975 was also decreed. The plaintiff was also held entitled to recover pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month on payment of the requisite Court fee in the Execution Department. Costs were awarded against the defendants. Aggrieved by the decree of the Court below, the defendant has filed this revision.