Decided on July 25,1967

KANTILAL Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal is taken by the plaintiff Kanhailal against the judgment of learned district Judge, Jaipur District, dated August 19, 1961, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 2644/12/6 (including Rs. 2100/- on account of good-will for 3 years at the rate of Rs. 700 per year, arrears Of rent and municipal charges amounting to Rs. 543/15/- from 1-1-51 to 1-10-32 and Re. 0-13-6 towards notice charges ).
(2.) PLAINTIFF Gulab Chand, it appears, brought an action in the court of learned district Judge, Jaipur City, on May 28, 1953, against Kantilal and Kusumchand proprietors of the firm Kantilal Chaganlal, with the allegation that he had obtained rooms Nos. 26 and 28 in the second storey, building No. 18-20-26 from Amba laxmi Narain Gundeli, on a monthly rental of Rs. 35/-, besides payment of municipal tax amounting to Rs. 6/57-per half year. These rooms were situate in a commercial locality. In Smt. year 2001. these rooms were sublet to the defendants firm on the condition that, besides municipal tax and the rent payable to the landlord, the defendants would pay Rs. 700/-per year to the plaintiff on account of good-will. Up-to Smt. year 2004 and for a part of Smt. year 2005, the good-will money had been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendants ceased to make payment of the contractual amount including the rent and the municipal tax from 1-7-51 to 1-10-52. Thus, the defendants were liable to pay Rs. 2100/- on account of good-will and Rs. 543/15/-by way of rent and municipal tax, besides Re. 0. 13. 6 as notice expenses. The plaintiff, in the end, prayed that a decree for Rs. 2644/12/6 be passed in his favour against the defendants.
(3.) IN the written statement the defendants admitted that they had obtained from the plaintiff two rooms on a monthly rental of Rs. 35/-in Smt. year 2000. No agreement had been arrived at between the parties about the payment of any good-will money. The landlord stopped charging the rent from July, 1951. A suit for ejectment was filed against the defendants in Bombay and that the suit was not maintainable in the Rajas-than courts.;

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