RAMCHANDRA KARKARE Vs. BHUDERMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application arises out of a suit for arrears of rent and electric charges filed by the landlord against his tenant.

(2.) THE Defendant had admittedly taken a portion of the Plaintiff's house on rent of Rs. 25/ -per month, the said amount being agreed to be inclusive of electric and water charges. Another tenant of the Plaintiff who used to reside In the upper storey of the same house also used to pay Rs. 25/ -per month as rent inclusive of water and electric charges. On the 1st of March, 1958 the tenant who occupied the upper storey of the house left: with the result that the Defendant was the only person who utilized the electric connection in the said house. The Plaintiff's contention is that in the month of March, 1958 the Defendant agreed in the presence of Dr. Sapre to pay electric charges independently of the agreed rent of Rs. 25/ -in case the said charges' exceeded Rs. 4/ -P. M. In his notice dated the 10th of October, 1959 the Plaintiff referred to this agreement between himself and the Defendant and claimed house -rent at the rate of Rs. 21/ - P. M. and electric charges in addition to this sum. The Defendant in his reply dated the 26th of October, 1959 denied any such agreement. In the written - statement also the Defendant denied the agreement to pay electric charges in excess of Rs. 4/ -per month.

(3.) IN the present case the fact of the endorsement on the reverse of Ex. D/2 was a matter of vital importance to the case. Such a fact could not have been permitted, and in fact was not permitted, by the Court to be proved by an affidavit, The affidavit dated 7 -12 -1960 must, therefore, be altogether excluded from consideration. The only action which the Court could have taken on that affidavit was to allow the Defendant to be further examined and cross -examined by the adverse party, but unless this was done the endorsement on Ex. D/2 had to be taken at its face value.