CHANDRA BHAN Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, present appellant (the defendant) has filed this Second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28th August 1973 passed by 2nd Additional Civil Judge Aligarh, allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of rent and ejectment of the respondents from a shop detailed in the foot of the plaint.

(2.) THE facts of the case are almost admitted. THE shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1962 the defendant respondent was its tenant with rent of Rs. 12.50 per month. THE tenancy was to commence from 29th of every month and the rent was paid upto 28th July, 1969 but thereafter inspite of demands and reminders no rent was paid. THErefore the plaintiff did not want the defendant to continue as tenant and the notice terminating the tenancy was served on the defendant respondent. THE defendant did not vacate the premises even after the service of the notice nor paid the rent hence the suit was filed. THE suit was contested by the defendant respondent alleging that it was pre 1950 construction hence provisions of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 were attracted and the plaintiff refused to accept the rent. THE notice was alleged to be illegal. THE suit was decreed and an appeal was preferred but during the pendency of the appeal U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972) came into force. In pursuance of Section 39 the defendant respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 456.50 p. as rent since 23rd October, 1969 till 31st August 1972 at the agreed rate of Rs. 12.50 p., together with the costs of appeal amounting to Rs. 16.50 p. and the other decretal amount of the trial court. It appears that entire decretal amount in execution case no. 72 of 1972 was also deposited. An amendment in the written statement was made in pursuance of Section 39 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. THE defendant respondents' appeal was ultimately allowed by the lower appellate court and the suit was dismissed by the lower appellate court. Against this decree and judgment present appeal has been filed.

(3.) THE term 'costs' is not a defined term either in the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Act. In case a particular word has not been defined in the Statutes, the dictionary meaning of the same can be looked into. According to Shorter Oxfords English dictionary word ' costs ' connotes the expenses of any legal transaction specially those allowed by the law or by the Court against the losing party. According to Websters IIIrd New International Dictionary the word ' Costs ' means expenses incurred in litigation, those payable to counsel by his client specially when fixed by law, those given by laws, or the court to the prevailing against the losing party. In the instant case the relevant meaning of the word ' costs ' would be the expenses incurred in the litigation as allowed by the Court. It has to be noticed that the appeal was decided, the suit was dismissed and the amount paid by the plaintiff to his counsel was supposed to be in sufficient compliance of the term ' landlord's costs '. No objection appears to have been raised by the landlord about non-payment of the counsel's fee. THE memo of appeal contains copy of the decree but the counsel fee has not been shown there. THE appeal was also not allowed with costs, particularly when the entire costs shown in the execution application was deposited, there appears no sense why not the counsel's fee would have been deposited. It was imperative upon the landlord himself to see that the counsel's fee was included in the costs of the appeal.