PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. HOTEL RAJHANS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant appellant against the judgment and decree dated 6.6.1994 (decree signed on 17. 6.1994) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge III, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 79/82, by reason of which the court below has decreed the suit against the appellant.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiffs respondents filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendant tenant on the ground of default of monthly rent from January, 1980 up to the date of filing of the suit including the electric charges. The plaintiffs also claimed arrears of rent for the aforesaid period @ Rs. 3263/ per month and also electric charges as per meter reading, which have been detailed in Schedule B of the plaint According to the plaintiffs, cause of action for filing the suit arose from April, 1981. Other reliefs were also claimed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) IN its written statement, the tenant Bank, besides the usual defence regarding maintainability of the suit, has come forward with a case that the plaintiff No. 1 is not its landlord inasmuch as the Bank is a tenant in respect of the suit premises under the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6. Regarding creation of tenancy, the defendant has admitted the case of the plaintiffs. However, about payment of Rs. 200/ per month for Neon Sign Board, the case is that after few days of fixation of the Sign Glow Board, the labourers of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 who were engaged for construction of their building, broke the aforesaid Sign Glow Board causing a loss of Rs. 3,000/ to the defendant. Though the plaintiffs promises to replace the said Board but the same has not been done and as such the defendant is entitled to realise the said amount from the plaintiffs. On this account, it is stated that as the Neon Sign Board was not in existence after it was broken down the question of payment of monthly charges for the same does not arise. About payment of electric and water charges in respect of the tenanted premises, the case of the defendant is that it was agreed upon that the plaintiffs shall submit monthly electric and water charges bills to the defendant and on such submission of bills, the payment shall be made accordingly. In spite of repeated requests and demands by the Bank the plaintiffs never submitted the bills as aforesaid since the month of January, 1977. Though the defendant was not under any obligation to pay the electric and water charges without submissions of the bills as agreed upon, but still then the defendant never refused to pay any bill in respect of the some whenever it was submitted.