MANOHAR SINGH Vs. RATAN LAL SRIVASTAVA
LAWS(ALL)-1986-10-77
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 29,1986

MANOHAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Ratan Lal Srivastava Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra, J. - (1.) This is a revision under Section 25 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act directed against the judgment and decree, dated 2.11.1985 passed by Special Judge (E. C. Act) Banda, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the petitioner Sheo Ratan Lal Srivastava from the premises in suit described at the end of the plaint, for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation.
(2.) Plaintiff Manohar Lal filed a suit claiming these reliefs on the ground that the defendant, the sitting tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- had made a default in payment of rent due from 19.5.1981 inspite of the service of notice on him on 16.3.1982. The defendant contested the suit on the ground - 1. that the rate of rent was Rs. 25/- per month and not Rs. 40/- per month as alleged by the plaintiff. 2. that there has been no default in payment of the arrears of rent, the entire amount of rent till May, 1982 having been paid. 3. At the first hearing of the suit the tenant has unconditionally deposited the entire amount as required under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of Act No. 13 of 1972. Thereafter, the plaintiff opposite party moved an amendment application and para 5A added to the plaint under order dated 18.10.82 it was alleged that the defendant on 10.6.76 had purchased plot 5ft. long and 22ft. wide and in October, 1981 he had constructed thereon two rooms, a kitchen and a bath room and the sitting tenant was using the same for residential purpose. This allegation was denied by the defendant by filing an additional written statement and therefore, the last point of dispute between the parties was as to whether the plaintiff's suit for the ejectment of the defendant from the premises in suit could be decreed.
(3.) On these pleadings three points for consideration were framed by the Special Judge, firstly, as to the rate of rent, secondly, as to whether there was default in payment of arrears of rent and lastly, whether the tenant was relieved against his liability for eviction on the ground mentioned in Sub-clause (4) aforesaid.;


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