GOPAL SINGH Vs. JAGANNATH PROSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was a tenant in respect of two rooms, verandah and a kitchen on the western part of holding No. 5 Afzal Hussain Lane together with the user of the common privy and the courtyard under the Plaintiff -Respondent. The Plaintiff -Respondent brought an ejectment suit against him alleging that the Defendant tenant had committed default in payment of rent since June 1964. The rate of rent was stated to be Rs. 40 per month payable according to English calendar. The Plaintiff further claimed that the tenancy of the Defendant had been terminated by a lawyer's notice dated June 21, 1965.

(2.) The Defendant (present Appellant) in his written statement claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 30 per month and not Rs. 40 as alleged by the Plaintiff. He also pleaded that he did not know English and somehow he could sign his name in Urdu. But the Plaintiff had been issuing rent receipts to him in English language. Taking advantage of the Defendant's ignorance of the English language, the Plaintiff while realising the rent for the month of May 1964 had fraudulently changed the figure of rent therein to Rs. 40 although a sum of Rs. 30 was paid by the Defendant and obtained his signature in the counterfoil of the receipt. The Defendant further stated that after the Plaintiff refused to accept the rent tendered for the month of June 1964 he had been depositing such rent in the office of the Rent Controller month by month upto the month of October 1965. Since November 1965, he had been depositing rent in the Court.

(3.) The learned Munsif,. Additional Court, Asansole, dismissed the suit, inter alia, holding that the Defendant's rent was Rs. 30 per month and not Rs. 40 per month as alleged by the Plaintiff. He further accepted the case of the Defendant that he had tendered rent for June 1964 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had refused to accept the same. According to the learned Munsif, the deposits made by the Defendant in the office of the Rent Controller were all valid. The Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said decision. The learned Subordinate Judge, Asansole, allowed the said appeal holding, inter alia, that the rate of rent of the suit premises was Rs. 40 and not Rs. 30 per month. He further held that the deposits made by the Defendant in the office of the Rent Controller were invalid and therefore, he was a defaulter. The deposits made by the Defendant were also considered as invalid as they were not preceded by tenders to the Plaintiff.