HIRA LAL Vs. HOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the respondent is not represented. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance. He brought a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the respondent for, a period of three years, namely, Babi of 1324 Fasli, complete 1325 and 1326 Faslis and Khar if 1327 Fasli. He showed in his claim that his claim in respect of 1324 Fasli was for a holding of 17 bighas, 17 Uswas, In 1325 Fasli it was for a holding of 33 bighas, 12 biswas. In 1326 Fasli it was for a holding of 33 bighas 12 biswas and in 1327 Fasli it was for a holding of 17 bighas, 17 biswas. The rent alleged varied in different years. The defendant contended in his written statement that it was not open to the plaintiff to join a claim for occupancy and non-occupancy holdings, that is to say, he could not combine suits in respect of different engagements. This plea found favour with both the Courts below.

(2.) The Court of first insfcance dismissed the suit in toto but the learned Judge gave a decree for the Babi of 1824 Fasli aftejp deduction of what had been admittedly paid by the defendant for that period.

(3.) In second appeal it was contended before a learned Judge of this Court that the view taken by the Courts below was erroneous. The learned Judge before whom the appeal came on for hearing remitted three issues enquiring whether the areas of 17 bighas, 17 biswas and the larger area were hold under the same engagement or different engagements. The findings returned were that there was a holding of 17 bighas and 17 biswas and there was another holding for some additional land in the years 1325 and 1326 Faslis.