CHHADAMMI LAL Vs. SATISH CHANDER
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
R.R.Rastogi, J. -
(1.)This is defendants second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for his ejectment from a shop and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiff-respondent is owner of the shop and the defendant was its tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 14.00. The defendant had paid rent up to 12-9-1965 and thereafter he did not pay anything. Hence a notice of demand under Sec. 3 of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 and a notice to quit under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was given on 9-9-1966. The defendant refused to accept that notice. He did not comply with that notice and and hence the plaintiff filed Suit No. 37 of 1967, for ejectment and arrears of rent.
(2.)The defence taken by the defendant-appellant in that case was that he had not committed any default in payment of rent and the notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not valid. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. There was an appeal filed from that decision which failed and then a second appeal was filed before this Court. This Court affirmed the findings of the courts below that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent but in regard to the notice to quit held that it was not valid, with the result that in respect of relief for ejectment the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff thereafter gave another notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant on 10-8-1969 which was served on the defendant 11-8-1969. The defendant did not comply with that notice and hence the plaintiff filed Suit No. 7 of 1970 for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed shop, for recovery of Rs. 28/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 66/- as damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per month. Ad item and future damages were also claimed at the same rate.
(3.)The defendant-appellant contested the suit on the ground that the principle of res judicata did not apply to the case and the suit based on the previous notice of demand could not succeed. He further claimed that he had deposited the entire rent under Sec. 7-C of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 and thus he could not be treated in default under Sec. 3 (1) (a) of that Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.