PRAKASH CHAND Vs. SARDAR NARENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision against the judgment dated 26th February 1988 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Saharanpur in Small Cause Court Suit No. 4 of 1984 valued at Rs.9000/-.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit against the defendant-applicant for arrears of rent, recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation in respect of a shop situate at Court Road in the town of Saharanpur. THE trial court has decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the shop in suit as well as for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from 1st April 1980 to 22nd August, 1983 amounting to Rs.9000/- as prayed by the plaintiff and thereafter for damages at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from the date of the suit till the plaintiff-respondent gets possession over the shop in dispute. THE defendant in his written statement has disputed the rate of rent and has alleged that he had taken the shop in dispute from Baisakha Singh, father of the plaintiff, on a rent of Rs.50/-. Subsequently, the written statement was amended and a plea was taken that the contract of tenancy was void since the shop was let out on 16th September, 1977. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiff was that the shop was let out on 1st January, 1976. From a perusal of the trial court record which was produced before me, I find that only the following two issues were raised in this case vide order-sheet entry dated 7th January 1987 :

(3.) THEREAFTER the trial court proceeded to examine the dispute regarding rate of rent. It was alleged by the plaintiff that a rent receipt was also issued on 11th March 1980 and it was signed by the defendant. The said signatures were, however, denied and the parties led evidence including expert evidence regarding signature on the said rent receipt and ultimately the court believed the case of the plaintiff regarding rate of rent. The evidence of the defendant too was appraised by the trial court and the same was found to be not reliable in regard to both, the rate of rent as well as the date of commencement of the tenancy. Besides this, the trial court has in the impugned judgment also relied upon as a circumstance that in the reply notice the defendant did not allege at all that he had taken the shop in dispute on rent from Baisakha Singh, father of the plaintiff, on 16th September 1977. Absence of the same was, judged in in the light of oral evidence produced by the parties and ultimately the trial court came to the conclusion that oral evidence regarding contract of letting now sought to be adduced by the defendant "after the amendment in the written statement," was an after thought and does not deserve to be accepted. The trial court also found that there was no documentary evidence to support the said version. Therefore, on appraisal of the oral evidence led by the parties and the circumstantial evidence as stated above, the trial court disbelieved the case of the defendant that the tenancy commenced with effect from 15th September, 1977 and believed the case of the plaintiff that it commenced with effect from 1st January 1976. Thus, I find that the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that no speaking order has been passed by the trial court with regard to the date of commencement of tenancy is devoid of force.