JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. DHARAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-applicant has preferred this revision against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sharanpur, decreeing the plaintiff-opposite party's suit for arrears of rent and damages and also for ejectment of the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-applicant. The defendant applicant resisted the suit on the ground that he was not a defaulter, he had been tendering rent to the plaintiff-landlord but he refused to accept the same. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff did not carry out annual repairs in the premises inspite of notices. Thereupon he himself carried out the repairs and for the purpose he deducted a sum of Rs. 20/- (one month's rent) towards expenses from the rent. The defendant deposited the entire amount minus Rs. 20/-in the trial court before hearing of the suit commenced. The Judge, Small Cause Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that the defendant-applicant had not committed any default. On the plaintiff's revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, District Judge, Saharanpur, set aside the order of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit for defendant's ejectment. Hence this revision.

(3.) The sole question involved in the instant case is whether the defendant-applicant was entitled to carry out the repair and deduct one month's rent. The trial court held that the defendant applicant had served a notice upon the plaintiff-landlord pointing out the defects in the ceiling of the shop which required immediate repair. The landlord was requested to carry out the repairs failing which the defendant asserted his right to deduct one month's rent. The landlord failed to carry out any repairs. The defendant thereupon carried out the repairs and deducted a sum of Rs. 20/- which represented one month's rent. The finding of the court below clearly show that the defendant-applicant had been remitting rent to the plaintiff-landlord by money-order but he had been refusing the same.It is further admitted that before the first date of the hearing of the suit the defendant-applicant deposited the entire rent, except Rs. 20/-. The Additional District Judge held that the defendant-applicant was not entitled to deduct Rs. 20/- from the rent payable by the defendant-applicant to the plaintiff-landlord, and as he failed to pay the same after service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, he was a defaulter.