PURUSHOTTAM Vs. RADHAVALLABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cross appeals arise in a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent. The plaintiff Purushottam filed a suit against Radha Vallabh, Rampal, Sriram and Ramroop defendants on the 17th of January, 1946 (Pos Sudi 15 Samvat 2002) for ejectment in respect of a shop situated at Sojat leased by the plaintiff to the defendants on the 22nd of May, 1936 (Jeth Sudi 2 V. Samvat 1993) on the allegation that under the agreement of lease, rent had been fixed at Rs. 111/-per year and the defendants had paid rent up to Baisakh Sudi 2 V. Samvat 2002 but that thereafter the defendants neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises. It was alleged that a notice bad been served on the defendants on l6th of July, 1945, but to no effect. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants should be ejected and they should be called upon to pay Rs. 129/8/- as arrears of rent calculated for two months at the rate of Rs.111/- per year and for the subsequent six months at the rate of Rs. 222/- per year. It was also prayed that the defendants should be called upon to pay rent at Rs.222 per year till the date of delivery of possession.

(2.) THE defendants admitted being lessees from the plaintiff but stated that they were ready and willing to pay the rent and had offered the same to the plaintiff but he had refused to take it. It was alleged that the notice to quit was invalid as according to the terms of the deed 3 months' notice was necessary. THE claim for enhanced rent was denied and it was stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to delivery of the possession of the shop under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.