GOPAL Vs. LAXMINARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that the defendant Laxminarain had taken the suit house from the former on an annual rent of Rs. 40/- on Sawan Sudi 1 Smt. 2003 vide Ex. 1 but the defendant did not pay any rent. THEreupon the plaintiff served the defendant with a notice to quit on the 21st November, 1955, and stated that the tenancy would stand terminated on the 13th January, 1956. THE defendant refused this notice. Consequently, the plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of arrears of rent for a period of two years and five months amounting to Rs. 96/t0/-, and he also claimed Rs. 23/9/- as compensation for use and occupation for the period after the termination of the tenancy upto the date of the suit. THE plaintiff also impleaded Mayaram as defendant No. 2 in the suit as he was a sub-tenant of defendant Laxminarain. Defendant No. 2 filed his written statement merely to say that he was a tenant of defendant Laxminarain and was paying him a rent of Rs. 5/- per mensem but otherwise he did not resist the plaintiff's suit. THE main defendant who resisted the suit was Laxminarain and he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the plaintiff, and although he admitted that he had executed the rent-note Ex. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, he raised the plea that it had been obtained from him by the plaintiff through one Dhanraj by undue pressure. This defendant also contended that the plaintiff had filed against him two suits prior to the present one and he had still continued in possession and therefore the present suit was barred by the rule of resjudicata. For facility of reference, I shall refer to Laxminarain as the only defendant in this suit.