SHYAMACHARAN RAGHUBAR PRASAD Vs. SHEOJEE BHAI JAIRAM CHATTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed on 25th June 1960 by the respondent No. 1, Sheoji Bhai, against the appellant Shyamacharan and the respondent No. 2 yadav, claiming a decree for their eviction from a cinema-house known as Jairam theatres, situated in Raipur, and a decree for arrears of rent and damages. The additional District Judge of Raipur, who is trying the suit, has, in the circumstances stated below, given to the plaintiff a decree for the ejectment of the defendants. It is against this decree that this appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that by a registered lease-deed the defendants had taken from him the cinema house on lease for a period of ten years from 20th May 1950 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/-; that on the expiry of the lease by efflux of time on the midnight of 19th May 1960 he served telegraphically a notice on the defendant Shyanzacharan for vacating the leased property and delivering vacant possession thereof to him; and that instead of vacating the cinema-house, the said shyamacharan sent a false reply alleging that according to an oral agreement between him and the plaintiff the lease had been extended for a further period of two years. The plaintiff averred that on the expiry of the lease on the midnight of 19th May 1960, the defendants were not entitled to remain in occupation of the cinema house, and claimed a decree for ejectment, for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 16,353/- and for damages for the period after the expiry of the lease till the date of eviction.

(3.) THE appellant contested the suit pleading inter alia that the lease had not come to an end inasmuch as before the expiry of the period fixed by the registered lease-deed the plaintiff verbally agreed to extend the term of the lease by another two years and had further stipulated to execute a proper lease-deed for the extension of the term but that he had failed to do so. The other defendant' Yadav did not file any written-statement. He, however, made an application to the trial court pleading that by virtue of a partition made between Shyamacharan and him, the entire liability with regard to ejectment, payment of rent and damages was on shyamacharan alone.