GOPI CHAND Vs. SMT. CHANDRA MUKHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the defendant arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and ejectment of the application from the premises in dispute.

(2.) Admittedly while the opposite party happens to be the landlady of the disputed house, the applicant was a tenant thereof. The suit was instituted on the ground that originally the applicant was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40 but in July, 1969 it was agreed between the parties that the rent would be enhanced to Rs. 50 from the month of August, 1969 and the opposite party actually did pay rent for the month of August, 1969 at the enhanced rate for which the applicant gave a receipt on a printed form to the opposite party and obtained his signature on the counter-foil of the receipt. Thereafter, the opposite party did not pay rent inspite of receipt. Thereafter, the opposite party did not pay rent inspite of repeated demands. The plaintiff thereupon gave a notice dated 6th September, 1970 demanding arrears of rent and terminating the applicant's tenancy. Since the rent in arrears remained unpaid inspite of the notice of demand, hence the suit making a claim for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 1,460-60P. Eviction of the applicant was also sought on the alternative ground that he had caused damage to the premises demised.

(3.) The suit was contested by the applicant who asserted that he was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 only, that the rent had never paid Rs. 40 per month and it was never enhanced to Rs. 50 as alleged by the landlord. According to the plaintiff the husband of the plaintiff who used to realise rent generally gave no receipt and sometimes when a receipts was demanded, he used to issue receipt on plain paper. It was denied by the applicant that he had received any printed receipt and it was alleged by him that the plaintiff's husband had fraudulently obtained his signature on a printed receipt from saying that a duly executed receipt will be sent later on which was never received by him. It was also alleged by the applicant that on the 2nd of March, 1970 the plaintiff's husband had realised an amount of Rs. 150 from him as rent for the months of September, 1969 to January, 1970 at the rate of Rs. 30 per month and given a receipt on plain paper for the same. The applicant also resisted the claim on the allegation that he had spent an amount of Rs. 208-75 P. On repairs of the house with the consent of the plaintiff out of which a sum of Rs. 50 had been adjusted against rent and the rest remained to be adjusted against rent falling due in future. The allegation that any damage had been caused to the house in the tenancy of the applicant was repudiated.