GOPIRAM BHOTICA Vs. BISSESWAR DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiff claims certain rent in respect of premises No. 176. Harisson Road, together with a certain sum as compensation for wrongful repudiation of the lease and for damage to the building itself in consequence of the wrongful acts of the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff sets up an agreement for lease on the 23 March 1922, the agreement being made between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant's son, Chunilal, on the other. Under the terms of the agreement Rs. 300 was paid in advance as a de-.posit to be set off against the last month's rent. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, went into possession on the 29th. March 1922, from which date three years was to commence, but he remained there only until the 3 of March 1924, on which date admittedly he left the premises. Subsequent to his leaving, the plaintiff says, he was unable to re-let the premises until some time in January 1925 when he obtained a tenant at the rate of Rs. 211 : consequently after that time he is only claiming damages for the difference between Rs. 300 and Rs. 211.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the arrangement as regards the lease was arrived, at between himself and Chunilal some days before the defendant went into possession. The terms having been settled, they repaired to the office of Mr. N. C. Bose and asked Mr. A. C. Bose to draw up a lease. Mr. A. C. Bose sent them off to his assistant, Chandi Babu, who thereupon prepared the document which is Ex. A to the plaint and which contains the terms which had been, agreed upon between the parties. They then went back to Mr. A. C. Bose with the, papers, and he after explaining it added the, last two clauses, Nos. 6 and 7, and then took the signature of the defendant by the pen of Chunilal. On the same day, it is said, Chunilal deposited Rs. 300 : that is according to the plaintiff's story; the defendant, himself says that the deposit was made on the 21st.