PRABHU DAYAL RAJGARHIA Vs. DASRATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for his eviction from the suit premises and also for realisation of Rs. 720 on account of arrears of rent for the period of three years preceding the filing of the suit.

(2.) Shortly stated the case of the plaintiff was that the house in question fell exclusively to his share as a result of partition between him and his elder brother Dwarka Prasad. The appellant is a tenant in the suit house on a monthly rental of Rs. 25. According to the plaintiff the tenancy commenced from 6th of Shukla Paksh and ended on 5th of Shukla Paksh of the following month according to the Sambat calendar. It is further said that later on an application filed by the defendant-appellant for fixation of fair rent the rent was reduced from Rs. 25 per month to Rs. 20 per month. The case of the plaintiff further was that he required the premises tor his own occupation, and as such, requested the appellant to vacate the premises but the appellant did not pay any heed to it and also defaulted in paying rent since Jeth Sudi 5,2018 Sambat. On these facts, the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 75 of 1962 for eviction. The suit was ultimately dismissed on the ground that no notice under section 106,of the T. P. Act was served on the defendant determining the tenancy. Thereafter the plaintiff or sent the notice under section 106 of the T. P. Act by registered post on 20th February, 1965 stating that the. tenancy was determined with the expiry chait Sudi, 5, 2022 Sambat and also asked him for payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 720. It is said that in spite of this notice, the defendant neither vacated the suit premises nor paid arrears of rent.

(3.) The defendant-appellant appeared and contested the suit. His defence, inter alia, was that no notice under section 106 of the T. P. Act was served on him. Further according to him, the tenancy was not according to Sambat calendar but was according to English calendar. With regard to the quantum of rent, the plea was that initially the rent of the premises was only Rs. 7 which from time to time was raised to Rs. 25 per month. Further according to him, the plaintiff wanted to raise the rent still higher and so an application was filed for determination of fair rent. As a result of that application, the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 20 per month. The allegation that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent was denied and it was also said that the plaintiff did not require the house for his own personal occupation.