KUMAR GOHUL CHANDRA LAW Vs. HAJI MOHAMMAD DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract and in the alternative for recovery of compensation and for arrears of rent. The plaintiff's case briefly stated is as follows: The plaintiff is the lessee under Govern-ment of premises No. 33 Canal East Road. By a letter dated 20 February 1932 the defendant offered to take lease from the plaintiff of the said premises for a term of five years at a monthly rent of Rs. 150. He also offered to pay the occupier's share of the Municipal taxes in respect of the said premises. This offer of the defendant was accepted by the plaintiff and that upon the basis of this agreement the defendant was put into possession of the said premises from 1 March 1932. The defendant also agreed to execute a formal registered lease embodying these terms. Subsequently he refused to execute the lease although he was repeatedly asked by the plaintiff to do so. On 25 January 1935 the defendant gave a notice to the plaintiff that he would vacate the premises on 28 February 1935 alleging that he was a monthly tenant and that he did not require the premises any longer. The relationship of landlord and tenant between them could not be terminated by the defendant by a notice as there was a verbal agreement for five years lease. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to have specific performance of the oral agreement or in the alternative to recover compensation on the basis of the rent reserved under the contract and also to recover arrears of rent due from November 1934 to January 1935.

(2.) The defences of the defendant are : (1) the plaintiff had no right or title to grant any lease for five years from February 1932 in respect of the premises in question, (2) that there was no valid agreement for lease for five years which could be specifically enforced; and (3) that only the rent of January 1935 was due and that although he was all along willing to pay, he could not pay it as the plaintiff did not send the bill for that amount.

(3.) The trial Court came to the following conclusions : (1) that there was no written document embodying the terms of the proposed lease; (2) that the letter dated 20 February 1932 written by the defendant shows that he offered to take lease of the premises for five years as alleged by the plaintiff; (3) that the defendant came into possession of the premises on the basis of the agreement as alleged by the plaintiff from 1 March 1932; (4) that the defendant vacated the premises after giving notice from 1 March 1935. On these findings he refused to enforce the contract specifically but under Section 19, Specific Relief Act, awarded one year's rent, that is Rs. 1,800, as compensation for breach of the contract. He also passed a decree for arrears of rent for the mon January, 1935.