URMILA DEVI Vs. SUBHASH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are preferred by the owners and arise out of two eviction petitions filed against the same tenant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as landlord (which refers to both 'landlord/landlady') and tenant.

(2.) The common facts, in brief, are as follows,

(3.) The tenant filed counter, inter alia, contending that his father had obtained vacant land in the year 1956 from the predecessor of the landlord. In other words, the tenant has set up a claim that he has constructed the schedule premises on his own costs and he is paying rents. He also pleaded that from the beginning the rent was being collected through a rent collector by the landlord. With respect to rent note, he contended that the father of the tenant was made to sign the rent note without reading and explaining the contents thereof. He also contended that there was a practice developed over the years that the rent collector collected the rents at his convenience once in two or three months and receipts were not being issued regularly. With respect to willful default, the tenant contended that he has paid the rent upto April, 1999 and thereafter the representative of the landlord collected the rents from May to July, 1999 and promised to send receipts and believing the general practice, the tenant did not insist. Later in August, 1999 when the tenant tendered the rent, the representative of the landlord demanded rent of Rs.600/- which was refused to be given by the tenant as it is exorbitant. According to the tenant, taking advantage of non-giving receipts from May to July, 1999 the eviction petitions were filed claiming willful default. To the extent of allegation of the landlord that the tenant has ceased to occupy the schedule premises, the tenant has denied the said ground and prayed for dismissal of the eviction petitions.