D K ASWATHANARAYANAIAH Vs. NALLAPULA SANJEEVIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals raise a short but an important question as to whether a lease deed, which provides an increase of rent after a lapse of a particular period, is illegal and therefore cannot be enforced in a court of law.

(2.) The main facts, which give rise to this question, briefly stated are follows: The plaintiff-respondent in S. A. 73 of 1960 filed a suit for a sum of Rs. 2,950.00 on the basis of accounts. It was alleged inter alia in the plaint that the plaintiff was carrying on business under the name and style of "Nallapula Sanjeeviah and Sons" at Hindupur. He took a house on rent from the defendant and executed Ex. B. 14, the Rent note dated 15-5-1946. According to the said Rent note the rent fixed was Rs. 300.00 per year for three years. There was a further stipulation that in case the plaintiff continued to occupy the house after the lapse of three years, he would have to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400.00 per year. It was stated by the plaintiff that there were dealing with the defendant and at the instructions of the defendant a Khata was opened in the plaintiffs account books and whenever the plaintiff paid the rent it was entered in the account books. Apart from that, the plaintiff was supplying provisions to the defendant. He was making cash advances either to the defendant or at his instructions to third parties. As an outcome of these transactions from 23-9-1948 to 28-3-1953 and after deducting the rent at Rs. 300.00 per year a sum of Rs. 2, 700.00 was due from the defendant. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 250.00 by way of interest and laid suit for a total sum of Rs. 2,950.00

(3.) The defence raised was that whatever payment of rent was made by the plaintiff it was endorsed on the rent not itself. In regard to the other dealings adverted to by the plaintiff, the defendant denied any such dealings. He also denied the liability on the basis of khata. It was alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff had entered into a partnership with the defendant and when the defendant started asking for the account of the partnership concern, he instituted the suit falsely. The defendant denied taking of any provisions from the plaintiff or receiving of any amounts or the plaintiffs paying to third parties on his behalf at his instructions. The defendant further stated that he is entitled to receive the rent at the rate of Rs. 400.00 after the lapse of three years which the plaintiff had not entered in is accounts.