VASUDEV Vs. GOPAL DASS BANGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 336/- towards refund of excess rent paid. Case set up by the plaintiff is that he was tenant on the shop pursuant to oral agreement dated 6.1.1967 at rent of Rs. 25/- per month. The shop comprised of two portions as per a site plan Ex.PW2/2 and it was found that in fact one portion belonged to the land of Hari Chand while the other belonged to Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee claimed rent for the said portion at the rate of Rs. 11.20 per month which the plaintiff had to pay and therefore, for the remaining portion of the shop which belonged to the landlord, the plaintiff was liable to pay original rent minus rent paid to the Municipal Committee but under threat of ejectment, the plaintiff had to pay the original rent. The defendant-Hari Chand had filed a petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment in which proceedings, the plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs. 750/- which included the amount of Rs. 336/- which was not payable.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff was liable to pay Rs. 25/- per month. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff-tenant could not take the plea that a part of the shop belonged to the Municipal Committee.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire portion belonged to Hari Chand and not to the Municipal Committee and there is no evidence that the said portion belonged to the Municipal Committee. The trial Court clearly held under Issue No. 2 in para No. 8 of its judgment that in respect of red portion, the Municipal Committee was the landlord and suit filed by the defendant-Hari Chand against the committee had clearly been dismissed. The finding was not challenged before the lower appellate court. Finding recorded by the courts below is that a portion of the shop belonged to the Municipal Committee and dispute inter se the appellant Hari Chand and the Municipal Committee was decided in favour of the Municipal Committee. In this view of the matter, the respondent-plaintiff cannot be held liable to pay rent to the appellant.