MOTILAL Vs. BADRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff had been at the material date a tenant of the Defendant. His suit for recovery of Rs. 84 -5 -0 against the Defendant for impairs of the pipe in the house has been dismissed by the Small Cause Court, Indore. This is, his revision against the order of the said Court.

(2.) THE Municipality, Indore, sent a notice (Ex P/4) on 28 -7 -1952 to the Defendant, the house owner, stating that his private pipe in the house was in disorder and water was coming out of it and flowing. over the land; the pipe should be put in order within 24 hours, otherwise the connection would be cut off.' Somehow or other this notice was received by the Plaintiff who sent a notice to the Defendant on 29 -7 -1952. The Defendant in his reply on 31 -7 -1952 stated that he was willing to undertake repairs and that the Plaintiff should not undertake it. It is, however, alleged in the plaint that the Plaintiff had already purchased the material and, therefore, he got repairs Completed. The total expenses came to about Rs. 73 -2 -0

(3.) IT is clear from the facts aforesaid that the Plaintiff had ceased to be,a tenant at the latest on the date when the Municipality had sent the notice to (he house -owner for repairing the pipe. Therefore; the Court below held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of Clause (f) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.