GURMEET SINGH Vs. HORIMOHAN PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application against )he Judgment and decree dated 25.4.94 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 3/92 dismissing the appeal and affirming the decree of the Munsiff. The only ground agitated before the appellate Court was the ground of defaulter in matter of payment of rent. The case of the petitioner is that he did not pay the rent for these months inasmuch as he was entitled to adjust the rent towards the cost of construction of shutter. He has spend a sum of Rs. 2,300/- and he was entitled to adjust the said amount towards rent of April/89 to August/89 and as such he adjusted the same and did not pay rent for the months of April/89 to August/89. For the months of September and October/89 he has shown to this Court two receipts showing payment for the said two months. It was submitted that before the Court inadvertantly such receipts could not be produced. The respondent landlord however submits that on the admitted facts alleged by the petitioner, the petitioner is a defaulter. The respondent plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court Section 7 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Section 7 allows the tenant to repair the premises and adjust the amount if permission of the; Court is obtained under Section 7 of the Act.

(2.) THIS does not mean that the tenant on his own can spend any amount towards repairing of the tenanted premises and adjust the same against the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. Section 7 does not permit the tenant to act suo motu and adjust any rent. Such would only be with the permission of the Court. Under Section 7 of the Act adjustment of the cost for an addition or repair of the tenanted premises cannot be a defence in the suit for ejectment as defaulter for non payment of rent. Under Section 7 an application for repair work has to be made and the Court grants such permission and such works have been undertaken in that event, amount as determined by the Court can only be adjusted and not otherwise. I hold that the tenant petitioner is a defaulter for a period of 4 months and as such the present application before this Court stands dismissed and the landlord is entitled to ejectment. The matter is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.