AMAR NATH Vs. PREM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's regular second appeal against the concurrent judgment and decrees of the Courts below, where by his suit for ejectment of the defendant-respondent from a shop situated in Amritsar Town and for recovery of Rupees 2,135/- on account of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation thereof, was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The plaintiff Amar Nath filed this suit on the ground that he was owner of a shop forming part of building No. 952-53/1-9 situated in a business locality of Amritsar. He alleged that the said shop was rented out by him to the defendant on 24-2-1965 at a monthly rent of Rs. 115/- for a period of 11 months. He claimed that the property being newly constructed was exempt from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1948. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 24-4-1967 to 23-4-1968 (a period of one year) at the rate of Rs. 115/- per mensem, and another sum of Rs. 805/- at the same rate as damages for use and occupation of the said shop for the period from 24-4-1968 to 23-11-1968 (a period of seven months). He claimed that he had terminated the tenancy, vide notice dated 2-4-1968 but the said amount had not been paid to him despite requests and the notice.

(3.) The defendant, on the other hand, denied that the building was exempt from the provisions of the rent control legislation. He pleaded a counter version. According to him, he had initially taken on rent on 24-2-1965 a shop from the plaintiff at the monthly rate of Rs. 115/-, which he had vacated on 30-4-1967 and for the succeeding period of 7-8 days, the rent due was forgone by the plaintiff due to a private arrangement arrived at between the parties, where under he vacated that shop and was given possession of another shop in the same building bearing shop No. 4 at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. he conceded that rent at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 80/- per mensem was due from him for the shop which was presently in his possession with effect from 1-5-1967, but nothing was due from him on account of the shop the possession of which he had abandoned. He claimed that he had made several requests to the plaintiff to accept rent at the of Rs. 80/- per mensem for the shop which was in his possession but the plaintiff had ignored them.