NAUHAR CHAND Vs. THAKAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bhatinda, dated April 11, 1966.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,200.00 on account of rent from 1.7.2019 Bk. to 30.1.2020 Bk. and in the alternative for compensation for use and occupation, of the shop situate in Mansa Mandi on the following facts, Girdhari Lal, the original owner of the property in dispute, mortgaged it to Sohan Lal, vide mortgage deed dated November 3, 1950. The plaintiff purchased the property in dispute from Girdhari Lal vide registered sale-deed dated May 26, 1958. Later, he redeemed the property from Sohan Lal on December 7, 1958, by paying the mortgage debt. The shop had been leased out by Girdhari Lal to Thakar Dass, defendant, vide rent-deed dated March 13, 1958, for period of one year from 1st Baisakh 2015 Bk. to 30th Chet 2015 Bk. at an annual rent of Rs. 800/-. On redemption of the property by the plaintiff, he became landlord of the shop and Thakkar Dass became his tenant. Thus the relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between them. It is further alleged that the defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiff and he filed two ejectment applications against him on the ground of non-payment of rent. The defendant on one occasion paid Rs. 2,400/- on account of rent for three years and on the other Rs. 800/- as rent for one year, upto 30th Asauj, 2019 Bk. It is further alleged that the defendant failed even subsequently to pay the rent to the plaintiff. He filed a third application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. The defendant did not pay the rent and an order of ejectment was passed against him wherein the plaintiff obtained possession of the property in dispute. It is alleged that the defendant did not pay rent from 1.7.2019 Bk. to 30.12.2000 Bk. at the rate of Rs. 800/- per annum. He consequently instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,200/-, as stated above.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant, inter alia on the ground that the upper storey of the staircase of the shop in question had dilapidated because of the construction of the neighbouring shop of Niranjan Dass and that Sohan Lal, mortgagee for that reason, reduced the rent of the shop in question from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 700/- per annum. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the rent at the rate of Rs. 700/-. Subsequently, it was alleged, an amount of Rs. 4,100/- was due from the defendant to the plaintiff, after adjustment of the excessive rent, which was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and thus no amount was due to the plaintiff. The trial Court framed the following two issues :-