RAJESHWAR PRASAD SAHI Vs. GHULAM RASHUL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit for ejectment of the tenants from holding No. 395A of Darbhanga Municipality, situate in Mohalla Benta, Hospital Road, Laheriasarai, and also for recovery of Rs. 204.33 on account of arrears of house rent with latrine tax.

(2.) The case of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) was that he let out the holding in suit to the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60 for eleven months beginning from the 1st March 1959, for which they executed a kiravanama dated the 3rd March 1959. The tenancy was for a fixed period and, if the tenants wanted to continue after the expiry of the tenancy, they were to execute a fresh kirayanama with the consent of the landlord (respondent No. 1), and, in case of disagreement, the tenants had to vacate the holding on the termination of the lease. The tenants were to pay rent according to the English Calendar on the 5th of the month next following that for which the rent was payable and they were not entitled to make any alteration. The period of tenancy expired on the 31st January 1960; but the tenants did not execute a fresh kirayanama, although they were asked to do so by respondent No. 1. Notices asking the tenants to vacate the holding or to execute a fresh kirayanama were sent to them by respondent No. 1 on the 11th November 1960 and the 26th January 1961. But the tenants neither executed a fresh kirayanama nor vacated the premises. They, however, continued to pay the rent up to January 1961 which respondent No. 1 accepted without prejudice to his claim for eviction. The tenants did not pay rent for the months of February and March 1961. The case of respondent No. 1 further was that the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 took electric connection in the premises in suit in violation of the agreement.

(3.) The defence, as disclosed in the written statement filed by the appellant, was that there was no cause of action for the suit and it was not maintainable, that, on the expiry of the period fixed under the Kirayanama, a month to month tenancy was created in favour of the tenants, as respondent No. 1 went on realising rent from month to month thereafter. Respondent No. 1 never asked the tenants to execute a fresh kirayanama immediately after the termination of the tenancy under the Kirayanama. The appellant approached respondent No. 1 after the notice dated the 26th January 1961 for getting a fresh kirayanama executed, but respondent No. 1 arbitrarily asked him to execute a kirayanama the terms of which were not in accordance with the kirayanama dated the 3rd March 1959 and so he did not agree to that suggestion. So far as the question of non-payment of rent for the months of February and March 1961 was concerned, the case of the appellant was that he offered the same to respondent No. 1 and further that a sum of Rs. 300 was in deposit with respondent No. 1 to the credit of the tenants as security advance and as such he could set off his dues for February and March 1961 against that advance. No condition of the Kirayanama dated the 3rd March 1959 had been violated by taking electric connection in the premises.