MOHAMMAD MIAN Vs. JUGESHWAR PRASAD
LAWS(PAT)-1948-3-10
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on March 31,1948

MOHAMMAD MIAN Appellant
VERSUS
Jugeshwar Prasad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Reuben, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the deft in suit for ejectment arises in the following circumstances.
(2.) THE suit relating to a house in Nabinagar Bazar was instituted by the pltf. as a suit for the ejectment of a tenant on the termination of his tenancy by a notice to quit. The case of the pltf. as stated in the plaint, is that he had a room with a verandah in Nabinagar Bazar; the building collapsed in the earthquake of January 1334, & the cleft, who wanted a house for establishing a shoe shop, agreed to reconstruct the building at an estimated cost of Rs. 200 & to remain in the building as a tenant at an annual rental of Rs. 40, the cost of the building to be set off against the rental payable for the first five years. The pltf. alleged that the deft, reconstructed the building in accordance with the agreement & the cost of the reconstruction was completely satisfied by setting off against it the rent up to 31 -12 -1939. Thereafter, the deft, agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 42 per annum but, in fact, made no payment whatever. In addition to the prayer for ejectment, the pltf. asked for arrears of rent up to the date of the expiry of the notice to Quit & damages thereafter. The deft, in his written statement, denied the relationship of landlord & tenant & set up a title in himself. He pleaded that the property in question belonged to one Mathura Saran, a member of the same family as the pltf. that Mt. Champa Kuer, widow of Mathura Saran, sold the property to one Lachhmi Prasad Upadhyay by a registered sale deed dated 4 -9 -1931, in the farzi name of Hakim Missir, a servant of Lachhmi Prasad Upadhyay; & that this deft, purchased it from Lachhmi Ptasad Upadhyay by a registered sale deed dated 1 -3 -1936. He denied the allegation in the plaint about the agreement to rebuilt the house & to hold it at a rent of RS. 40, & also the allegation about the subsequent agreement to pay rent at Rs. 42.
(3.) THE parties went to trial on the following issues : 1. Has the pltf. any cause of action or right to sue ? 2. Is the suit as framed maintainable ? 3. Is the Ct. -1. paid sufficient 4. IS the suit barred by the law of limitation?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.