JETHANAND Vs. NATHURAM VASVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant -tenant against whom a decree of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 24,000/ - with interest @ 8% has been given by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Judge.

(2.) APPELLANT happened to be a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/ - in suit accommodation in which he carried on business of motor parts. On 1.9.1994 respondent -landlord sent a guit -cum -demand notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. As per plaint, appellant had not paid rent since 1.7.92. It was claimed that appellant vacated the suit accommodation on 2.1.1995. On that date in all Rs. 36,000/ - were in arrears of rent for 30 months. On 12.4.1995 Rs. 2,000/ - were sent by the appellant through Kohumal Sindhi for which an acknowledgment of receipt was given in writing. As the remaining amount was outstanding a second notice dated 23.3.1996 was sent to the appellant by registered post which was received by him on 26.3.1996. Later on, the respondent filed the civil suit for recovery of Rs. 24,000/ - that being the rent which was not time barred. On the other hand, appellant claimed that he had handed over vacant possession of the accommodation on 1.10.1994. It was claimed that after receipt of notice appellant had assembled a panchayat in which Santdas, Murlidhar and Kodumal and others had participated wherein the respondent had admitted that he has received the vacant possession of the accommodation and no rent is outstanding.

(3.) HAVING heard advocate of the appellant and perusing the judgments and records of both the Courts below, I am of the opinion that the first appellate Court has not committed any error in granting a decree in favour of the respondent. Of course, first appellate Court is a final Court of fact and has to look into the whole case and decide both questions of fact and law. In the present case, the learned first appellate Court below has appreciated the whole of the evidence on record. He has been conscious of both the principles expressed in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (AIR 2001 SC 965) which are as follows :