RAMNARAIN PASI Vs. SUKHI TIWARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, is by the defendant, directed against the judgment dated 17-6-55 of Mr. Krishna Deva Prasad, Small Cause Court Judge at Sasaram, decreeing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The defendant executed a usufructuary mortgage in plaintiff's favour, mortgaging his house to him; and by a keravanama, executed on the same date, the defendant took back the mortgaged house on rent at Rs. 6/- per month from the plaintiff. The defendant did not pay the house rent from 16-2-52 to 15-2-55, and, therefore, the present suit was brought by the plaintiff on 16-2-55 for recovery of the arrears of rent for the above period.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit. His defence was that the agreement between the parties was not for execution of a usufructuary mortgage deed, but for execution of a simple mortgage deed and the defendant trusting the plaintiff gave his signature to the documents, which were never read over to him, but some time later on, when the plaintiff demanded rent from him, it was disclosed that the plaintiff had got ijara and kerayanama deeds executed by the defendant. The defendant then raised a hue and cry and thereafter, at the intervention of some people, it was settled that the defendant should execute a simple mortgage, in lieu 6f the rehan and the kerayanama. The defendant accordingly executed a simple mortgage on 10-10-52 in favour of the plaintiff. The rehan and kerayanama deeds were to be returned by the plaintiff when the final payment was to be made. The defendant further contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and therefore, the present suit was not maintainable. He also pleaded that the plaintiff could not, realise rent at Rs. 6 per month, because the kerayanama was executed merely as a device for realisation of interest, and the plaintiff cannot realise interest at a rate higher than that permissible under the Bihar Money-lenders Act.