KESHAV BHASKAR GHAISAS Vs. VISHWANATH GOPAL GOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KESHAV Bhaskar Ghaisas, original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 152 of 1977 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ulhasnagar, has come before this Court in second appeal.

(2.) APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF was the tenant of the respondent-defendant landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -. Plaintiff took the possession of the suit premises on 24th June, 1976 and at the time of taking possession the plaintiff had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,000/- with an agreement that the monthly rent of Rs. 75/- was to be adjusted from the said deposit of Rs. 3,000/ -. It is the case of the plaintiff-tenant that he had issued a notice on 16th February, 1977 informing the landlord that he was going to vacate the premises on 2nd March, 1977. Plaintiff then sent second notice on 3rd March, 1977 informing the defendant landlord that he was vacating the premises on 31st March, 1977. By the said second notice, the plaintiff asked the landlord-defendant to return the deposit of Rs. 2,250/- which was outstanding against him and to pay an amount of Rs. 80. 40 p. which was due from the defendant. But the defendant did not send any reply to any of his notices and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 2nd July, 1977 and sought a decree for Rs. 2985. 40 p. by way of principal and interest.

(3.) THE respondent-defendant landlord contested the claim of the plaintiff-appellant by filing written-statement at Exh. 16. The defendant-landlord contended that though the plaintiff-tenant was contending that he had vacated the premises on 31st March, 1977, but, in fact, the plaintiff had not handed over possession of the premises to him and even on the date of the suit, the plaintiff-tenant was in possession and occupation of the suit premises. Therefore, the plaintiff was liable to pay the rent and he, the landlord is entitled to adjust the said rent from the amount deposited with him by the tenant. The defendant-landlord thus contended that the plaintiff-tenant is not entitled to get any money decree and, therefore, his suit should be dismissed with costs.