SATISH Vs. MURLIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The facts of the case are as under :

(3.) After notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. By way of the special pleading, he pleaded that there is one shop at the first floor, which was in possession of Shri Manoharlal Shah, Advocate, who has vacated the same and handed over the vacant possession to the plaintiff. The said shop was got vacated showing bonafide need of his wife and son, but till today, they have not started any business. After receipt of the notice, he tendered rent of Rs. 6300/- by way of pay order no. 148898 to his counsel Shri Dilip Kumar Saxena on 26/08/2005, but he refused to accept. Thereafter, he personally tendered rent to the plaintiff who has also refused to receive the rent, hence there is no default on the part of the defendant. He further pleaded that initially the rent was Rs. 150/- per month, which was enhanced from time to time upto Rs. 900/-. Now, the plaintiff has again demanded the rent of Rs. 1500/-, for which the defendant did not agree, therefore, he filed the suit for eviction.