HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Click here to view full judgement.
Harnam Singh, J. -
(1.) THIS order disposes of Regular S.A. No. 736 of 1949 and Civil Revision No. 571 of 1949.
(2.) THE facts, so far as material, are that on 29 -11 -1947, Shri Suraj Narain instituted the suit out of which these proceedings have arisen for the recovery of Rs. 500 on account of arrears of rent and for the ejectment of Shri Rajpal Defendant from house No. 355, situate in Galli Lodhan, Kucha Pati Ram, Delhi, alleging non -payment of rent and subletting a part of the premises by the Defendant without Plaintiffs consent. In the plaint Plaintiff claims rent for the first three months at the agreed rate of Rs. 26 -9 -0 per monsom while for the remaining eight months, during which period the Defendant remained in occupation of the premises after notice of ejectment, rent is claimed at Rs. 53 -2 -0 per mensem. Giving up a sum of Rs. 4 -11 -0 Plaintiff claims Rs. 500 as arrears of rent and compensation and asks for the ejectment of the Defendant from house No. 355. Shri Rajpal Defendant resisted the suit pleading inter alia that the standard rent of house No. 355 was Rs. 20 -9 -0 per mensem and that the Plaintiff could not recover rout at Rs. 26 -9 -0 per mensem. The Defendant maintained that the sub -tenants had been in a part of house No. 355 for a number of years with the consent of the Plaintiff -landlord. Defendant then deposited in Court a sum of Rs. 405 on the first hearing of the suit on account of arrears of rent.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the trial Court fixed the following issues:
(1) Whether the grounds of ejectment pleaded by the Plaintiff exist and the Defendant is liable to be ejected?
(2) What is the amount due to the Plaintiffs by way of rent and damages?
(3) What is the standard rent of the property in suit?
(4) Whether a valid notice of ejectment was served on the Defendant, and if not what is the effect?
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.