DHAN RAJ JAYANA Vs. SAT PARKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Plaintiff Dhan Raj Jayna, from the judgment and, decree, dated February 22, 1957, of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Delhi, partly dismissing and partly decreeing his claim against the Defendant, Sat Parkash Singh.

(2.) THE suit of the Plaintiff was for eviction of the Defendant from the premises and for recovery of Rs. 11,180 as arrears of rent. The learned Judge dismissed the claim of the Plaintiff for eviction of the Defendant but J. decreed his claim for arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 6.890 -12 -0, leaving the parties to be their own costs. It is one property but four portions of it are described as (a), (b), (c) and (d) in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The first three portions were taken on rent by the Defendant on January 1, 1944, and the fourth on July 1, 1944. The total rent for all the four portions settled between the parties was Rs. 478 -2 -0 per mensem, but it was split over the portions in this manner: Rs. 150 for portion (a), Rs. 100 for portion (b), Rs. 125 for portion (c), and Rs. 75 for portion (d). This makes a total amount of Rs. 450 per mensem. To this is added Rs. 28 -2_0 as house -tax, which also the Defendant agreed to pay. Up to April 30, 1947, payment of rent according to this arrangement was made by the Defendant; On April 17, 1947, however, the Plaintiff served a notice under Section 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer -Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 (Act 19 of 1947), on the Defendant for enhancement of the rent from Rs. 450 to Rs. 652 -8 -0 per mensem, with Rs. 40 -12 -0 as the amount of house tax, a total of Rs. 693 -4 -0 per mensem, pointing out that the Defendant was liable to pay this rent with effect from May 1, 1947. This notice was received by the Defendant on April 22, 1947.

(3.) THE Plaintiff claimed rent from August 1, 1948, to September 30, 1949, at the rate of Rs. 693 -4 -0 per mensem and from October 1, 1949. to April 30, 1952, at the rate of Rs. 717 -12 -0 per mensem. The amount for the first period comes to Rs. 9,705 -8 -0, and for the second period to Rs. 22,250 -4 -0, the total of the two amounts being Rs. 31,955 -12 -(sic) The Defendant had been paying the Plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 600 per mensem and while the Plaintiff continued giving credit of the amounts received in the account of the Defendant, every time some balance was shown as due from the Defendant in the bill that he sent to the latter next time. The total of those payments was Rs. 25,800. The difference between the amounts of Rs. 31,955 -12 -0 and Rs. 25,800 comes to Rs. 6,155 -12 -0, which were the arrears claimed by the Plaintiff down to April 30, 1952. The Plaintiff by a notice made a demand for payment of the balance of arrears of rent and not receiving a favourable reply from the Defendant he again served a notice on May 28, 1952, on the Defendant terminating the tenancy from June 30, 1952. Two months rent at the rate of Rs. 717 -12 -0 per mensem comes to Rs. 1,435 -8 -0. The Defendant did not give possession of the premises. The Plaintiff calculated rent from July 1, to November 30, 1952, for a period of five months at the rate already stated, and reached the fisure of Rs. 3,588 -12 -0. The total of the figures of Rs. 6,155 -12 -0, Rs. 1,435 -8 -0, and Rs. 3,588 -12 -0 comes to Rs. 11,180 -0 -0. This is the amount claimed by the Plaintiff as arrears of rent from the Defendant in the suit which he instituted on December 9, 1952.