CHAMPARAN JAIN Vs. SRIPATI NATH DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for the specific performance of an alleged verbal agreement for the grant to the plaintiff of a 51 years lease, and in the alternative for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,300 being damages, and costs incurred by the plaintiff in erecting a building on the land demised, or for an injunction. The facts in so far as they are admitted are as follows: The plaintiff on 31 March 1933 executed a document Ex. 8 which is as follows: To most dignified zemindar Srijukta Baba Sripati Nath Deb Makam 67 B. Beadon Street, Calcutta. Out of your Bustee (land) at No. 81 Beadon. Street, I take settlement today of more or less 5 (five) Cottason the monthly rent fixed at Rs. 103 one hundred and three rupees and I put into your sherista as deposit Rs. 100 (one hundred rupees) today towards the rent for a month and receive a receipt. Be it known that the rent of the said 5 cottas of land from a month hence, that is to say, from the 18th Baisakh 1340 B. S. shall continue to run at the said rate and (I) shall remain bound to pay the same. I shall not be competent to raise any plea or objection (thereto). Finis, 17 Chaitra 1339 B. S. Eng. 31 March 1933.

(2.) This must be read with Ex. 9 which is an acknowledgment granted by the defendant to the plaintiff. To Sri Champa Lal Jain of No. 81, Cotton Street, Calcutta. Having this day fixed the monthly rent of more or less 5 (five) cottas of land within the Bustee at No. 81, Beadon Street at 88 Rupees for 4 (four) Cottas at the rate of 22 rupees (per cotta) and at 15 for 1 cotta aggregating to 103 rupees (I) execute this receipt after receiving from you this day 100 (one hundred) rupees as deposit towards the rent for 1 month. Be it known that the rent of the said land shall continue to run at the aforesaid rate from 1 (one) month hence, that is to say from the 18 Baisakh of the year 1340 B. S. and (you) shall remain legally bound to pay the same. Finis. 17 Chaitra 1339 B. S. Eng. 31 March 1933.

(3.) On the 31 March 1933, the plaintiff deposited with the defendant a sum of Rs. 100 (rupees one hundred only) and was put into possession of the land in question. Thereafter it was agreed that the plaintiff would not be liable for rent until and from the 18 October 1933, and that the rent would be Rupees 111 per month. On 25 February 1935, the defendant instituted a suit against the plaintiff in the Court of Small Causes for arrears of rent, and subsequently instituted other suits. Into the circumstances of this litigation it is unnecessary to enter, and it is sufficient to say that the defendant admits that his claim for all arrears of rent have now been satisfied. It is admitted also that the plaintiff has erected a building on the land in question. The plaintiff contends that the defendant had undertaken to give him a lease for 51 years, that he did not owe the defendant any rent when the first suit in Small Cause Court was instituted against him in 1935, that in that suit it was wrongfully alleged that he was only a monthly tenant, and that the real object of the defendant in bringing that suit was to get rid of his promise to give the plaintiff a lease for 51 years and eventually to eject him. In this connexion, the plaintiff maintains that the defendant should have given him credit for a sum of Rupees 1400 which he had deposited with him on 15 January 1934. The deposit is admitted, and to explain how it was adjusted the defendant produced a document, Ex. 7, which purports to be a settlement of account dated 22 February, 1934. The defendant's case is that Ex. 7 shows how the plaintiff's liabilities absorbed that sum. The document should be set out in full for considerable cross-examination and a great deal of arguments have been directed to it.