CHUNI LAL DUTT Vs. GOPIRAM BHOTICA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case two questions have been argued on behalf of the appellant. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendant appellant were in treaty for letting out to the defendant certain premises 176 Harrison Road belonging to the plaintiff. The first document with which we have to deal is a document which came into existence on the 22 March, 1922 and it is contended by the appellant that the learned Judge should have excluded that document from evidence altogether. It is also contended by the appellant that the agreement founded on by the plaintiff is not proved and that the parties have not shown to have been ad idem as to the question whether or not anything in the way of carrying on business was to be allowed to the defendant on these premises.

(2.) The question arose by reason of the fact that although according to the plaintiff the defendant was in possession having taken these premises for three years he suddenly vacated them altogether and refused any further to carry out the covenants. Accordingly the learned Judge has at the instance of the plaintiff awarded certain damages against him.

(3.) We are not concerned in this appeal save with the two points to which I have already referred.