(1.) THIS is a sub -tenant's application against the tenant who had filed a suit for ejectment of the former on the ground that he had fallen in arrears of rent for a period exceeding six months. The sub -tenant contended that during the pendency of the application for fixation of standard rent he had paid a sum of Rs. 350 to his pleader Datar on April 2, 1957, for the purpose of being paid over to the tenant in payment of the rents which had accrued due so far. The trial Court rejected this contention and also disbelieved the evidence both of the sub -tenant and his pleader Datar in that behalf and passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the tenant. The sub -tenant then took an appeal to the District Court and the learned Extra Assistant Judge, who heard the appeal, carefully went through the evidence recorded in the case and, concurring with the findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal with costs. The sub -tenant has filed the present revision application against the dismissal of his appeal in this Court.
(2.) MR . Chitale, the learned advocate for the sub -tenant, contended that both the lower Courts were in error in disbelieving the evidence of Datar to the effect that the sub -tenant had paid to him a sum of Rs. 1,900 out of which Rs. 350 was to be paid to the tenant. Mr. Chitale vehemently urged that his client, the sub -tenant, should not suffer on account of the default committed by his pleader Datar in paying the amount of Rs. 350 to the tenant. Mr. Rege, the learned advocate for the tenant, contended that whatever might have happened between the sub -tenant and his pleader with regard to the sum of Rs. 350, his client's claim to the decree for eviction could not be affected, so long as arrears of rent were not paid to him. In my opinion, Mr. Rege's contention must be accepted. Assuming that the sub -tenant, as alleged by him, paid Rs. 350 to the pleader with a direction that the amount should be paid over to the tenant towards arrears of rent and the pleader Datar failed to carry out that direction, either intentionally or otherwise, the sub -tenant might have a valid claim against Datar for the recovery of the amount, but in so far as the claim for eviction was concerned, negligence or default on the part of Datar who was in no better position than an agent of the sub -tenant would be a default or negligence of the principal, the sub -tenant, and accordingly, the sub -tenant could be very well said in law to have committed default in payment of the arrears of rent to the tenant. In my opinion, therefore, apart from the question as to whether Datar's evidence was true or false, and on the assumption that the sub -tenant had paid a sum of Rs. 350 to Datar for being paid over to the tenant in payment of arrears of rent, as alleged by the sub -tenant, so long as the tenant did not receive that amount from Datar, the tenant's right, to a decree for eviction could not be affected. Accordingly, in my view, the learned Extra Assistant Judge, who dismissed the sub -tenant's appeal mainly on this ground, was perfectly right in his conclusion.
(3.) THE tenant, however, shall not execute the warrant for possession of the premises in the suit until December 31, 1962.