JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE only question for decision in this regular second appeal filed by the defendant is whether the suit for a permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was maintainable in its present form.
(2.)THE respondent has been the appellant's tenant in the property in dispute since 1952. He had executed the rent note. Exhibit P. 7. dated 1-10-1952 and the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month. An agreement. Exhibit P. 1. dated 48-1957 executed between the parties may show that the house was in a very dilapidated condition and that the plaintiff-respondent had spent a sum of about rs. 460/- on the repairs of a part of the property with the knowledge and consent of the appellant. The appellant had further authorised the respondent to spend a total amount of Rs. 1500/- on the repairs of the whole property. The respondent had been allowed to go on adjusting the monthly rent against the amounts spent by him and the appellant had agreed on his part that he would not take steps to recover the rent until he had paid off the amounts spent by the tenant on the repairs and renovations of the premises.
(3.)IN disregard of this agreement, the appellant had filed an ejectment application against the respondent in the Court of a Rent Controller on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The respondent had to deposit the arrears claimed by the appellant on the first hearing in order to avoid his eviction. This has necessitated the filing of the present suit for injunction seeking to restrain the appellant from taking steps to realise the monthly rents in this extortionate manner until the tenant has been reimbursed in respect of the amounts spent by him on the repairs of the property.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.