M.P.MEHROTRA, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and for the recovery of a certain sum as arrears of rent and as water charges. The plaintiff landlady also claimed mesne profits for use and occupation.
(2.) THE brief facts are these: The plaintiff-appellant as the owner and landlady of the house in suit sought the ejectment of the defendant who was her tenant in the said house and whose tenancy was alleged to have been deter­mined by a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The house in question was constructed in 1962 and hence the U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act of 1947 was not applicable to this building. The plaintiff further averred that she got a water tap fitted in the house on the request of the defendant who had agreed to pay water charges. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not pay any water charges from March 1963. He did not pay rent from llth December, 1963 at the agreed rate of Rs. 33/- per month. The plaintiff served a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the defendant determining the latter's tenancy. He gave a false reply alleging that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the house to him for a certain sum. The said allegations were absolutely incorrect and there was no such agreement between the parties. The defence was that rent had been fully paid up to 10th December, 1963. On 11th December, 1963 there was an agreement between the parties where under the plaintiff was given Rs. 2.000/- as advance by the defendant and the former promised to sell the house by July 1964. In the agreement it was also agreed that till the sale was effected, the interest payable by the plain­tiff to the defendant on the said sum of Rs. 10.000/- and the rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiff shall stand adjusted against each other. The plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to any rent whatsoever. She did not execute the sale deed by July 1964 inspite of repeated request. The plaintiff had no right to eject the defendant as the possession of the latter was now as a purchaser and not as a tenant. No water charges were payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. No arrears of rent were due from the defendant to the plaintiff.
(3.) THE trial court framed the necessary issues, tried the suit and decreed the same. Thereafter the defendant-tenant filed an appeal and the same was partly allowed. The decree of the trial court in respect of ejectment and pendentelite and future mesne profits was maintained. The decree for the recovery of the arrears of rent and water charges was set aside and the claim in respect of the same was dismissed.;