RAJESH GOTHI Vs. GRANDHI PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent filed the suit for recovery of rent from July 1997 to February 1998 at the rate of Rs.400/- per month from the revision petitioner, with interest at 24% per annum. Revision petitioner filed his written statement inter alia contending that when his father took the building on lease in 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- he gave a deposit of Rs. 1,500/-, to be returned with interest at 12% p.a. at the time of vacation of the building, and the arrears of rent, if any, for a period of two months would carry interest at 12% per annum and that the rent was later enhanced to Rs.400/- per month and that he paid the rent at Rs.400A p.m. till December 1997, and that the respondent did not issue receipts for that amount. When he asked for issuance of a receipt, respondent sought enhancement of rent to Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and admitted receipt of rent till December 1997 before the mediators. Since he refused to enhance the rent to Rs.1,500/- p.m. before the mediators, he got issued a registered notice to the revision petitioner to name a bank to deposit the future rents and remitted the rent for the month of January 1998 by Money Order, which was evaded to be received by the respondent and so he filed a petition seeking permission to deposit the rents into Court and is depositing the rents regularly into Court before the Rent Controller and so the respondent filed a petition seeking his eviction from the demised premises on the ground of wilful default. Since he paid away the rent from July 1997 to December 1997 and since the rent from January to December 1998 was deposited in R.C.C. No.5 of 1998 filed by him, respondent is not entitled to claim the amount that too with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

(2.) In support of his case, respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. A1 and A2 on his behalf. Revision petitioner examined his brother as D.W. 1 and another witness as D.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 to B11 on his behalf. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions dismissed the suit. Questioning the same respondent preferred C.R.P.No. 1218 of 2001 to this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 12-12-2001 vide

(3.) After remand, the respondent examined one more witness as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A3 to A5 on his behalf. In support of his case, the revision petitioner examined himself as D.W.3 and marked Exs. B 12 to B 15. The trial Court, by the order under revision, decreed the suit for Rs.2,632/-. Hence this revision by the defendant in the suit.