MT. BANARASHI AGARWALL Vs. SANKARLAL AGARWALLA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff who brought a suit against the defendants for realisation of rent for certain premises, for the Sambat years 2006, 2007 and 2008 at the rate of Rs. 751/ - per year and the total claim was valued at Rs. 2253/ -. The plaintiff's case was that she is the widow of one Rameswar alias Mongilal Agarwalla, since deceased and that she held the land in suit measuring about 2 bighas 9 lechas and 9 dhurs tinder the Gauripur Raj Estate, and that she also owned a shop house with adjoining kitchen and latrine on that land which the defendants had taken on lease along with the premises from the plaintiff as a monthly tenant on the stipulation to pay a consolidated rent of Rs. 751/ - per year. She further pleaded that in pursuance of that arrangement, the defendants were In occupation of the premises in suit running a firm under the name and style of "Chunilal Narsingdas" and that the defendants were in arrears of rent from the year 2006 Sambat to 2008 Sambat for which the present suit has been brought.

(2.) THE defendants denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; but on the other hand, they pleaded that they were yearly tenants of Sewchandrai Chirania, since deceased, who was the father -in -law of the plaintiff and they had paid the rents for the years upto 2007 Sambat to the said Sewchandrai Chirania while he was alive and had paid rents for the Sambat years 2008 and 2009 to his widow Dhapi Agarwallani and his minor sons Punamchand and Hulaschand at the rate of Rs. 375/ - per year which was the stipulated rate. The defendants admitted to be in possession of the said premises since the Sambat year 2003 and to have paid the rent upto the year 2009 Sambat. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the suit, found in favour of the plaintiff and held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the defendants were in arrears of rent as was alleged by the plaintiff and he passed a decree in her favour for a sum of Rs. 2253/ - against the defendants with costs on contest. The defendants preferred an appeal in the court of the learned District Judge, Lower Assam Districts, who, by his order dated 19th December, 1955 set aside the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs suit for rent mainly on the ground that it was not proved that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He directed the plaintiff to bring a proper suit for declaration of her title, if so advised. The learned District Judge did not advert to other issues in the suit, but decided in appeal only what was the subject matter of Issue No. 2, as framed by the trial court.

(3.) IN our view, the lack of natural confidence would not entitle Sewchandrai to behave just as he would like and the presumption would be that he acted as an agent of the plaintiff in the matter of letting out the premises to the defendants, in spite of all his mental reservation or displeasure, since he did not free himself from the obligation of acting as an agent under the power of attorney. The learned District Judge failed to appreciate this legal principle and drew a wrong inference which led to an error in his finding namely that the letting out to the defendants was not on behalf of the plaintiff.