NARAIN DAS Vs. PANDIT PERMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for the ejectment of the defendant from two shops and two rooms of which he was the lessee under the terms of an agreement dated August 18, 1927. The covenant was that the lease should be deemed to have commenced on June 17, 1927, that rent should be paid at the rate of Rs. 610 a year, but that two years rent should be paid in advance. A sum of Rs. 70 had been paid before the document was executed and registered. A further sum of Rs. 450 was paid at the time of registration. There was left for payment a sum of Rs. 90 on account of advance of rent for one year and the sum of Rs. 610 for the advance of rent for the second year. Under the agreement, the sum of Rs. 90 was to be paid on January 14, 1928, and the sum of Rs. 610 on April 15, 1928. Thereafter rent was to be paid each year in the month of Asarh for 10 years. The rent of the last two years was to be set off as it became due against the advance. Sometime after the agreement was executed a dispute arose between the parties. The defendant was a Halwai who made and sold sweets. He wished to build an oven in one of the rooms which had been leased to him. The plaintiff objected upon the ground that the building of an oven would be contrary to the Municipal bye-laws.

(2.) Eventually the defendant instituted a suit in order to obtain an injunction against the plaintiff restraining him from interfering with the building of the oven. The defendant also asked for a sum of Rs. 70 as damages. That suit was dismissed in the Courts below, but a decree was passed in favour of the present defendant by this Court on November 30, 1931. The suit for the injunction had been instituted on February 28, 1928.

(3.) The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted on April 23, 1928. The plaintiff sued for the ejectment of the defendant upon the ground that the defendant had failed to pay the two sums of Rs. 90 and Rs. 610 on January 14, 1928, a April, 15, 1928, respectively. There was a covenant in the lease that failure to pay these sums on the due date would give a right to the plaintiff to eject the defendant. It is not denied that the sums were not paid, nor is it denied that there was a covenant that failure to pay would give rise to a claim for ejectment.