MADHUSUDAN DAS RAJARAM Vs. VASUDEO CHUNNILAL, LASHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Defendant's second appeal from a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent from February 1, 1951 to November 1, 1954. The decree for ejectment is based on the ground that the Defendant neglected to pay arrears of rent within one month after notice of demand. It was alleged in the plaint that the ground floor of house No. 4/1419 was taken by the Defendant on rent in 1941. Thereafter the Defendant took on rent the first floor from the Plaintiff at Rs. 3 per month. It is in respect of the latter portion that this suit was instituted. The defence was that both the portions of the house were with the Defendant from the very beginning and the Plaintiff's allegation that the first floor was let out by a subsequent transaction was not correct. The first appellate Court has found in favour of the Plaintiff and it is not open to the Defendant to challenge that finding of fact in second appeal.

(2.) IN spite of notice the tenant did not pay arrears of rent. The demand notice covered the period from February 1, 1952 to June 30, 1954. It is urged on behalf of the tenant that as rent could legitimately be demanded only for a period of three years and in the notice, which the Plaintiff gave, time -barred rent was also demanded, the notice was no good for the purposes of Section 4 (a) of the Act.

(3.) IT seems clear to me that if the landlord includes in the notice of demand rent for these months for which time has already run out, it cannot be said that the demand is inserted for fraudulent purposes. Demand of a time -barred debt or a time -barred rent is no fraud. Observations in Gurpur Vamana Pai v. Venkatu Naika AIR 1936 Mad 116 and Harcharan v. Ram Krishna 1955 MBLJ 835 : AIR 1955 NUCMB 3877 support my view.