DHANDU MAL Vs. SURAJ MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this second appeal are that as a trustee of the Agrawal Dharamsala situated in Jaipur City, the plaintiff Suraj Mal, filed against the defendant-appellant Dr. Dhandu Mal, a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on the basis of a rent-note dated the 22nd June, 1948, in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur. It was agreed' that the defendant had taken a portion of the said Dharamsala on rent of Rs. 100/- P. M. , that he had failed to pay rent for the last 13 months ending 30th June, 1950, that he was liable to pay Rs. 1300/-; but since he had deposited an advance of Rs. 300/- at the beginning of the tenancy, this amount was deducted and a claim for Rs. 1000/- was made for arrears of rent. THE defendant admitted the execution of the rent-deed Ex. P-2 but he resisted the claim for ejectment on the ground that the plaintiff had not obtained a certificate from the Rent Controller and that he had filed the suit only because the defendant had taken steps to get the standard rent fixed. It was stated that the premises were handed over to the defendant's possession from the 15th July, 1948, instead of the 1st July, 1948 and. therefore, the defendant was not liable to pay Rs. 50/- for the rent of the first fifteen days. It was further stated that the plaintiff had undertaken to build a cow-shed and a tonga-shed for the defendant and that, since he had failed to do so, the defendant was entitled to a reduction of Rs. 20/- P. M. from ' the rent. It was also stated that the plaintiff had agreed to get for the defendant a separate meter fixed for the electric light, that on account of the plaintiff's failure to do so, the defendant had spent Rs. 93/- for erecting a partition wall and thus the defendant claimed a total reduction of Rs. 469/6/- from the amount claimed by the plaintiff as arrears of rent. THE trial court dismissed all the objections raised by the defendant and decreed the suit as prayed. On appeal to the District Judge, Jaipur, the defendant was again unsuccessful, and, therefore, he has filed the present second appeal in this court.

(2.) THE appellant's learned counsel has raised before us, all the above objections which he had taken in the trial court. THE questions whether the appellant occupied the premises from the 1st or the 15th of July, 1948, whether the respondent had made an oral contract to construct a cow-shed or a tonga-shed or a partition wall for the appellant, are those of facts. THE rent-note is quite silent about these terms of agreement and since there is a concurrent finding of both the courts below on these matters, a second appeal thereon, does not lie, and to this extent the appeal is fit to be dismissed summarily.