Honble N.C. SHARMA, J.—Phool Chand deceased was admittedly tenant of the respondents in a shop premises facing north and forming part of a building known as Pratap Bhawan standing on Plot No. S 4 B on Kabir Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur. He had taken this shop premises on rent on March 14, 1963 from the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. Electric consumption charges calculated on the basis of readings in electric meter and water charges on proportionate basis were payable by him besides the monthly rent. According to the respondents-landlords, the tenant, Phool Chand, had deposited with them a sum of Rs. 60/- to be retained as advance till the tenant continued to occupy the shop. Initially, the tenant paid the rent for the period March 14, 1963 to March 31, 1963 on April 4, 1963 and thereafter he started paying it monthly according to Gragarian calender month. Although, the duration of tenancy Was fixed, as ten months, but it was also agreed that whenever the landlords wanted to get the premises vacated, they could determine the tenancy by serving notice of one months duration. Irregular payments of rent were made upto the month of April 1966. Thereafter an amount of Rs. 59.60 was tendered by money order containing a remittance note that after appropriating the advance deposit of Rs. 60/- and deducting the money order commission of Rs. 0.90 paise, rent was being remitted in respect of the period from May 1, 1966 to August 31, 1966. This remittance was received by the plaintiffs on September 20, 1966 and the appropriation of the amount remitted was recorded towards the payment of rent for the months of May a.06.1966. Certain more remittances of rent were made as detailed in para 5 of the plaint which were appropriated towards payment of rent upto the end of the month of March 1967. Since the tenant had deducted money-order commissions from all these remittances made by money orders, they could not be termed as valid and proper tender of the monthly rent. Nothing was tendered or paid on account of rent in respect of the periods April 1967 and onwards. Upon these facts, the plaintiffs have pleaded that the non-tender and non-payment of rent by the deceased tenant, Phool Chand, for a period exceeding six months, as a ground for eviction of the appellants. Besides, Kailash Chandra, plaintiff No. 3, had passed the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from Alwar Polytechnic in June 1967 and he was sitting idle and without employment. He reasonably and bona fide required the suit shop in order to start his workshop. It was alleged that since Phool Chand tenant used to carry on his business alone in the demised shop and since he has expired, his heirs are not legally entitled to retain the shop. Comparative hardship, in these circumstances, would not be greater to the appellants in case a decree for ejectment is passed against them and would be greater to the landlords-respondents in case such a decree is refused to them. This is the second ground upon which ejectment of the appellants from the suit premises is claimed. Although, the tenancy of Phool Chand deceased had determined by effluxion of time, yet, by way of abundant caution, the plaintiffs-landlords, by serving upon Phool Chand, a notice dated November 16, 1967 on 18.11.1967, effectively determined his tenancy on and by December 18, 1967. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents against Phool Chand-tenant, the latter expired on June 15, 1973 and since thereafter the appellants were in possession of the suit shop and the right to sue survived against them, they were impleaded as defendants to the suit. The plaintiffs thus, claimed a decree for Rs. 292.95 as arrears of rent and money-order commission wrongly deducted by Phool Chand from the rents remitted by money orders and Rs. 1/- as cost of notice and for ejectment of the appellants from the shop in dispute.

2. Phool Chand tenant contested the suit by filing a writte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document