MALLADI SEETHARAMA SASTRY Vs. NAGANATH KAWLWAR AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The plaintiff, whose claim to recover a sum of Rs. 1219-97 nP. from the defendant, has been rejected by the lower court, has preferred this revision petition. The amount the plaintiff sought to recover represents the principal and interest due to him from the defendant towards telephone charges from April, 1956 to 7/09/1956; the principal amount being Rs. 900-56 Ps.

(2.) The plaintiff was a resident of a house in Vijayawada bearing Municipal Door No. 6/142. He applied for and was given a telephone connection in the year 1853. The defendant is a firm located in the building in the same town bearing door No. 11-25-22 and situated within 60 yards from the plaintiffs building. The defendant requested the plaintiff that the telephone might be installed in its building so that it could use it for its rice export business. As the plaintiff had no immediate need for a telephone he acceded to the request of the defendant. The telephone bearing No. BJ 122 was accordingly installed in the defendants premises. The defendant was using it since its installation in 1954. The defendant however, defaulted in the payment of the telephone charges from April 1956. The demand notices were however issued to the plaintiff as the telephone stood in the name of the plaintiff. Though he brought this matter to the notice of the defendant the latter failed to pay the amount. Even a registered notice dated 16/06/1958, issued by him to the defendant to pay the arrears of the telephone bills was of no avail. The plaintiff was therefore obliged to pay the telephone charges himself, which he did in two instalments -- (1) Rs. 500.00 on 16/07/1958 and (2) Rs. 400-9-0 on 24/08/1958. Even though the defendant was informed of these payments and demand was made by the plaintiff to reimburse him the defendant did not comply with the demand. The plaintiff was therefore, obliged to file the suit.

(3.) The defence was a total denial of this arrangement, viz., that the telephone bearing No BJ 122, which was issued in the name of the plaintiff was at the latters request. It was further contended that any sub-letting, assignment or transfer of a telephone was clearly prohibited by the conditions governing the contract under which a subscriber obtains an installation and that the agreement which was pleaded by the plaintiff violates the statutory provisions and was void and unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. It was also contended that the suit claim was barred by limitation.