LAWS(PVC)-1913-1-124

RAHIM BAKSH Vs. SMRICE

Decided On January 02, 1913
RAHIM BAKSH Appellant
V/S
SMRICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the owner of a house in the Jhansi Cantonment. The respondent occupied the house from October 16th, 1909, till the end of June 1910, and from the beginning of November 1910 till the end of March 1911. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the respondent is liable to pay rent daring the period of his tenancy at the rate of Rs. 75 per mensem as contended by him or at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem as contended by the appellant. The Munsif decided in favour of the appellant. The District Judge decided in favour of the respondent.

(2.) The house was built and became ready for occupation in 1905. A Major Stevens, who was Brigade Major, offered to take the house at a rent of Rs. 100 per mensem but the appellant demanded a higher rent. At the instance of Major Stevens, a notice was issued to the appellant under Section 6 of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1902. The appellant lodged an objection under Section 18 of the Act and a committee of arbitration was constituted to inquire into the matter. The committee fixed the rent at Rs. 75 per mensem. Major Stevens entered into possession and, notwithstanding the decision of the committee, paid rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem, the rate which he had himself offered in the first instance. It is common ground that rent was paid at that rate so long as the house was occupied between 1905 and 1909.

(3.) The respondent arrived upon the scene in October 1909, and entered into occupation of the house on the 16th of that month. The Munsif finds that he agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem, but the District Judge finds that there was no express or implied agreement on the part of the respondent to pay rent at that rate. The learned Judge has accepted the account given by the respondent, namely, that he went to the appellant s shop to take the house, that appellant then demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem, that the respondent demurred to that, made no agreement at all and entered into possession, feeling certain that the rents of all houses in Cantonments were fixed and thinking that he would have to pay the fixed rent and no more.