MANI KANT TIWARI Vs. BABU RAM DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit which the plaintiff filed claiming to be the landlord of the suit accommodation and the defendant' s eviction was claimed from the said accommodation on the ground that the latter' s tenancy in the same had been determined by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent due from him for the period from 1st July, 1958 to December, 1958, within a month of the notice of demand which was served on him on 21st January, 1959 and, therefore, he became a defaulter and the suit for eviction was, therefore, maintainable without the permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the repealed U. P. Act III of 1947. The abovementioned notice was a composite notice which combined demand with the determination of the defendant' s tenancy. The tenancy stood determined with effect from 28th February, 1959. Therefore, with effect from March 1, 1959, the defendant became liable to pay damages for his illegal use and occupation which were claimed at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month which was also the contractual rate of rent. Thus, the plaintiff claimed decree for eviction, for arrears of rent from 1-7-1958 upto 28th Feb., 1959 and for damages for illegal use and occupation for the period commencing from 1st March, 1959 onwards. Certain amount was claimed for electric current supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant raised various pleas in defence. Inter alia, it was contended that the notice in question was bad in law; the suit for eviction was not maintainable as a part of the tenanted accommodation had not been included in the suit; the plaintiff exercised undue influence and pressure on the defendant in compelling the latter to agree to pay the rent at the exorbitant rate of Rs. 45/- taking advantage of the difficult situation in which the tenant was placed; the plaintiff discontinued supplying electric current to the defendant' s portion and thereby deprived the tenant of an amenity to which the latter was entitled; the defendant was deprived of the quiet enjoyment of the tenanted accommodation and the necessary repairs were not effected to the said accommodation. THE contract of tenancy was alleged to be void and illegal as it was not brought about by an allotment order of the District Magistrate. THE defendant lastly alleged that he was not a defaulter as a cheque for the arrears of rent was tendered to the plaintiffs counsel but the latter refused to accept the same and, therefore, it was sent by post within a period of one month. However, the postal envelope could not be tendered to the plaintiff due to the latter' s tactics and in such a situation, the defendant was not a defaulter and the plaintiffs suit for eviction was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) SRI K. L. Grover, learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent, contested the aforesaid submissions made by the defendant appellant. However, it may be stated that SRI Grover did not object to certain adverse observations made in the trial court' s judgment against the defendant being deleted.