NATHAN LAL Vs. DURGA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mt. Janki Kuer and Nand Kishore were the proprietors of "khata khawat" No. 1 of mahal Baqimanda, Mauza Muhiuddinpur Buklana, in equal moieties. On 8th August 1923, they executed a lease in favour of L. Durga Das for a term of five years, i. e., from 1331 P. to 1335 F. The rent agreed to be paid by the lessee , to the lessors was Rs. 4,000. It was stipulated that out of the said sum of Rs. 4,000 the lessee was to deposit in the Government Treasury Rs. 1,969 for the Government revenue every year, and the balance of Rs. 2,031 was payable to Nand Kishore and Mt. Janki Kuar in equal shares. On or about the time when the lease was executed Nand Kishore borrowed Rs. 2,500 from the lessee, but left that amount with him for payment to one Mangal <JGN>Sen</JGN> , in whose favour he had executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,100.

(2.) Under the terms of the lease Rs. 1,015-8-0 was payable to Mt. Janki Kuar. As regards his share of the rent, Nand Kishore entered into the following arrangement with the lessee. It was agreed upon that out of the rent due to Nand Kishore, i. e., Rs. 1,015-8-0 annually, the lessee would be entitled to deduct Rs. 500 per year with interest on the amount of Rs. 2,500 advanced by him to Nand Kishore at the rate of one rupee per cent per mensem. One Niadar Mal held a simple money decree against Nand Kishore, in execution of which he got the interest of Nand Kishore in the leased property attached; and eventually the said property was purchased by the plaintiffs on 21 May 1924. The present suit was instituted under Section 102, Agra Tenancy Act, for recovery of Rs. 1,100 principal and interest for l332 F, being the share of rent due to Nand Kishore for that year. They claimed Rs. 1,015-8-0 principal and Rs. 84-8-0 interest.

(3.) The suit was contested on the ground that the plaintiffs, as the transferees of the interest of Nand Kishore, were bound by the terms of the lease and that they were not entitled to recover the whole of Nand Kishore's share of rent for 1332 F. but only so much of it as was payable to him after the deduction stipulated for in the lease. In brief, the defendant contended that, according to the terms of the lease, the lessee was entitled to deduct Rs. 500 together with Rs. 240, being interest on Rs. 2,000, which was then due out of the sum advanced to the lessor at the time of the lease.