SHRI RAGHUBIR Vs. SMT. KRISHNA KUMARI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and the decree dated 6th Dec., 1982 by the learned Additional District Judge, Sikkim decreeing in part the suit brought by the respondent for possession and arrears of rent.

(2.) The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that she let out the entire ground floor measuring 20' x 30' consisting of one shop room, one bed room and-a kitchen situated at Temi Bazar South Sikkim on monthly rent of Rs. 150.00 and that the appellant was in arrears of rent with effect from Jan., 1978 despite service of notices on him. She claimed Rs. 3,900.00 for 26 months from 1st Jan., 1978 to Feb. 1980. Besides, she claimed a decree for possession after the eviction of the appellant from the aforesaid premises on the grounds of bona fide necessity and default in payment of arrears of rent.

(3.) The appellant who contested the suit admitted in his written statement that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 150.00 per month but raised a controversy about the extent of accommodation agreed to be provided. He pleaded that the rate of Rs. 150.00 p.m. was settled for four rooms which already existed and one kitchen which was to be constructed for him by the respondent. His plea is that since he agreed to pay at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month for each room, kitchen being equal to a room, and since the kitchen was not constructed for him, the respondent is entitled to rent at Rs. 120.00 per month only. Therefore, be claimed adjustment at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month with effect from June, 1976. Further, he pleaded that the respondent had agreed to provide an almirah, and gaddi etc., for the purpose of the shop and also electric: fitting; but he did not do so and instead asked him to carry out the work and adjust the expenditure to be incurred towards the amount of rent payable to her ad so he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 500.00 on the provision of the almirah ad gaddi etc., and Rs. 400.00 on electric fittings, but the respondent did not give adjustment therefor towards the rent. Further, he pleaded that the respondent had agreed to pay land tax which she did not pay for the year 1978 and therefore, he had to pay a sum of Rs. 90.00 on that account which he was entitled d adjust. Further, he claimed adjustment of Rs. 180.00 which was paid to the respondent through one Shri Jai Narain. He denied to have committed default in payment of arrears of rent and also that the respondent had bona fide necessity for the premises in question.