SANANDA SAHU Vs. RAMCHANDRA SAHU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Defendant against the concurrent decisions of the two courts below decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for ejectment. The Plaintiffs are the owners of a house which was let out on a monthly tenancy to the Defendant on a rent of Rs. 4/ -. per month. The house belongs to Ramachandra, Plaintiff No. 1, Lakshman Sahu, Plaintiff No. 2 and Susila Bewa, Plaintiff No. 5 the widow of Jagannath who died in 1949. The Plaintiffs filed a small cause court suit No. 45049 claiming arrears of rent from the Defendant from July, 1946 to may, 1949. The defence was that at the time of the death of Jagannath certain articles were taken on credit from his grocery shop which he was holding in the disputed house by the Plaintiffs and it was agreed that the price of the articles should be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. After contest that suit was decreed on 22 -12 -49. In the meantime the Plaintiffs served notice to quit on the Defendant on 11 -7 -49 asking him to quit by the end of July, 1919 and they also claimed arrears of rent for June and July, 1949. On 16th of January, 1950, the present suit for ejectment was filed, and there was a claim for rent for June, July and August, 1949, and damages from September, 1949 to January, 1950. The Defendant, it appears, had deposited the dues of the Plaintiff,; under the S.C.C. Suit on the 24th. January, 1950, that is, soon after the institution of the present suit, for ejectment. On the 3rd of May, 1950, the Defendant also deposited the rent claimed in the present suit. The case for the defence was that the Defendant was not a habitual defaulter and he was ready and always willing to pay the rent and although he tendered the rent it was refused. His further plea was that without an exemption order from the House Rent Controller, the present suit was not maintainable.

(2.) THE learned Munsif after a consideration of the entire evidence, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the Defendant had deliberately withheld the rent for the period in respect of which the previous suit was filed, and he was a habitual defender, and as such no order of exemption was necessary from the house rent controller. He accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment, and he also passed' a decree for arrears of rear and damages. Thereupon the Defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Hence the Defendant has come up to this Court in Second Appeal.

(3.) THERE is no merit in this appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.