BULAQI SINGH Vs. BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule directed in a Revision against a decree for ejectment passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi. It has been rather difficult for me to follow what exactly the Senior Subordinate Judge has held and where he has held it, but with the aid of counsel I have been able to get the facts and the findings.

(2.) On the 7th of February, 1948, Behari Lal, the Landlord, filed a suit against Bulaqi Singh for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground that the rent of the demised premises was raised to Rs. 6/6/-- a month which had not been paid. He also alleged in the plaint that certain other premises had been encroached upon by the defendant, and he asked for damages for use and occupation for these premises; in paragraph 7 (d) of the plaint he described ii as "rent by way of damages for use and occupation". On the first date of hearing the defendant deposited Rs. 196/5/-- which was the rent due on the demised premises at the rate agreed upon, and he pleaded that the other premises for which damages were being claimed formed part of the demised premises and no separate rent was payable for them.

(3.) The trial Court held that the area encroached upon, which on the plan, Exhibit P.5, is shown as IJKL and OPQR, was not included in the lease, but the tenant was liable to deposit the damages which the owner was entitled to for use and occupation of these two portions and as that had not been paid he decreed the suit. He assessed the damages at Rs. 10/-- per mensem. On appeal the Senior Subordinate Judge held that the area encroached upon became part of the demised premises under the terms of the lease and therefore they were demised premises "and that full rent plus damages should have been deposited at the first hearing and adopting the reasons given by the trial Court he dismissed the appeal.