RATAN SINGH Vs. GEETA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application by the defendant is directed against the order and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court Mainpuri decreeing the plaintiff Opposite party's suit for arrears of rent and delivery of possession of the house in dispute.

(2.) Gita Prasad plaintiff Opposite Party filed a suit in Court of Judge, Small Causes for recovery of arrears of rent and for possession of the disputed building on the allegation that the defendant Ratan Singh has been tenant of the house in dispute on a rent of Rs. 30/- per mensem since February, 1970, and he had paid no rent at all. He claimed recovery of arrears of rent from October, 1970 to September, 1973 at the rate of 30/- per mensem and also for possession of the house in dispute. The defendant contested the suit and asserted that he was not a defaulter, he has been paying rent to Satya Narain who has been issuing receipt to him and later on relations between the parties became strained on account of a criminal case going on between them under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, consequently the landlord refused to accept the rent. Thereupon the defendant had been depositing the same in the Court of the Munsiff under Section 7 C of the U.P. Act III of 1947. On the pleadings of the parties, the III Addl. District Judge, Mainpuri, framed four different issues. The learned Judge held that the rate of rent was Rs. 30/- per mensem and the plaintiff Geeta Prasad was owner of the house in question. The defendant has no grievance against those findings. The defendant has however assailed the findings of the learned Judge on issue Nos. 2 and 4. These issues were in the following manner :

(3.) It appears that the defendant had filed a number of receipts issued by Satya Narain the son of the plaintiff, in support of his plea that he had been receiving rent and issuing receipts on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Judge discarded these rent receipts on the ground that Satya Narain was not the owner of the house, therefore, any rent paid to Satya Narain or any receipt issued by him could not be taken into consideration. The learned Judge without discussing the evidence observed that the receipts filed by the defendant appeared to be false because the statement of Satya Narain was that the defendant had never paid more than Rs. 30/- at a time, whereas receipts indicated that some times rent amounting to Rs. 180/- had been paid at a time. On these findings issue No. 2 was answered against the defendant and he was held to be defaulter.