SEVATI DEVI Vs. RAM PRATAP BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their case, in brief, is as follows:-The suit Plot No. 443 appertaining to Khata No. 94 belonged to one gopal Chan-dra Dwivedi. On his death, his two daughters (plaintiffs) as his sole surviving heirs inherited the same. There are six shop rooms on the said plot as indicated in the sketch plan attached to the plaint. Defendants are brothers. On 1-9-64, defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to take room Nos. 2 and 3, besides the adjacent room on the east, on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- per room for a period of eleven months. This agreement was reduced to writing and executed by plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1. Though the agreement recited advance of Rs. 375. 00 as security, besides payment of Rs. 375. 00 towards one month's rent; in fact, no amount was paid by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs. On 6/9/1964, one Darsan Singh forcibly occupied the easternmost room, which is described as room No. 1 in the plan. On 31/10/ 1964, the defendants occupied room Nos. 2 and 3. The defendants have failed to pay rent as stipulated in the agreement in spite of repeated demands and also continued in occupation of the said rooms beyond the stipulated period. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit to recover arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 125. 00 per room per month for eleven months as stipulated in the agreement and at the same rate for the subsequent period till the date of institution of the suit on 6/7/1966. In all, they claimed recovery of Rs. 5,050. 00.

(2.) DEFENDANTS in their written statement pleaded that the suit rooms were let out to defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per room in August, 1963 for a period of eleven months. Defendant No. 1, besides stating that he paid rent at that rate during the said period, alleged that the plaintiff's father and plaintiff No. 2 had received from him from time to time a total amount of Rs. 3,480/ -. Defendant No. 1, while admitting execution of the agreement dated 1-9-64, states that in spite of execution of this document, it was agreed that he would continue occupation of the rooms paying rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month for each room which was to be adjusted against the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,480/ -. The enhanced rate of rent was mentioned in the agreement dated 1-9-64, as by then, rents in the locality had increased and the plaintiffs wanted to reduce other tenants to pay higher rents. Defendant No. 2 denies to have forcibly or otherwise occupied the suit rooms and disclaims any sort of liability. In short, the defence is that defendant No. 1 has been occupying the suit rooms on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- each since 1963 and the same is to be adjusted towards the alleged advances made by him to the plaintiffs and their father.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit in part for Rs. 1,644. 33 on the following findings; (1) Defendant No. 2 is not a trespasser and did not occupy any of the suit rooms. As such, he is not liable for any portion of the plaintiff's claim, (2)defendant No. 1 executed the agreement dated 1-9-64 but did not occupy the suit rooms in pursuance of this agreement; (3) defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant of the two rooms in August, 1963 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per room and continues to occupy the same at the same rate; (4) defendant No. 1, therefore, is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month per room for the period from 1-11-64 till the date of suit, i. e. , 6-7-66; (5) defendant No. 1 failed to prove advance of Rs. 3,480/- in different instalments to plaintiff's father or plaintiffs and no such sum is outstanding against them and (6) plaintiffs received rs. 375/- as advance of licence fee for one month at the time of execution of the agreement dated 1-9-64.