9911796707
TMI Blog1933 (11) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et them forth at some length. 2. The defendant occupied some premises owned by the plaintiff-applicant at the rate of ₹ 55 per mensem. There was a lease which is admitted to have been a legal lease terminable by a month's notice. Subsequently the defendant obtained some additional premises at an additional rent of ₹ 25 per mensem. The defendant is a timber merchant and it appears that there was a rise in rentals in the neighbourhood in which the premises stand with the result that on 24th August 1931 the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant giving him the alternative of quitting the premises, i.e., both sets of premises, by 27th September 1931, or, if he failed to give up possession of continuing his occupation at a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the determination of the lease, and there is no doubt that the lease determined on 27th September 1931, which was the date named in the notice, and which the trial Court has found to be the date of the determination of the lease. On what terms then did the defendant continue in possession of the premises? There was no renewed lease, nor does he appear to have been holding over under Section 116, T.P. Act, because the plaintiff did not accept rent from him though it may be argued, and has been argued by Mr. Pandey, that he did otherwise assent to the defendant's continuing in possession within the meaning of that section. If he was holding over, the old lease would no doubt be renewed, but Mr. Pandey's argument is that owing to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nhancement and the landlord does not take ejectment proceedings, he is not entitled to claim rent at the enhanced rate. It will be observed in the present case that the landlord did propose enhanced rent at a stated rate and the defendant did not protest but announced his intention of vacating by particular date which however he did not do. It has been argued by Mr. S.N. Seth on behalf of the opposite party that the plaintiff's case throughout was that the defendant was a trespasser and that there was no issue on the question of whether he was a tenant or not. If such an issue had been framed, it is argued, the defendant would have been able to prove that being a timber merchant it was not possible for him to vacate the premises at such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant refused to vacate and remained in possession he must be held to have agreed by implication to hold over and to have accepted the proposal to pay rent at the enhanced rate proposed by the landlord in his notice, and I therefore find that the amount of the decree given to the plaintiff ought to be increased by ₹ 105 at the rate of ₹ 35 per mensem for the three months. 5. Two minor points have been argued on behalf of the applicant. The trial Court has refused to allow interest on the sum decreed for arrears of rent. No reason has been given by the trial Court. It is not argued that there was any contract to pay interest, but where interest has been allowed by the Courts as damages by way of compensation it has, I think, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion, this agreement has the effect of bringing the matter within the same transaction as the suit for arrears of rent. I do not think therefore that the trial Court has acted illegaly in disallowing interest or in allowing the set-off. On the first point argued however I consider that the applicant is entitled to succeed, and I therefore allow the application to this extent and modify the decree and order of the trial Court by directing that an additional sum of ₹ 105 be decreed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled to pending and future interest which for some reason or other the trial Court has disallowed. Parties will receive and pay costs in proportion to their success or failure. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Indian Laws ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
