( 1 ) THIS is a plffs application in revision Under section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The deft, was a tenant of a house owned by the plff. on a rental of Rs. 10 per mensem. The plff. gave the deft, a notice to quit by a certain date and informed him that if he continued to occupy the house after that date, he would have to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 15 per month. The deft, did not reply nor vacated the house. Hence, the plff. sued the deft, for his ejectment and for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem and also demanded damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 15 per mensem.

( 2 ) THE suit was decreed on 1-2-1945 for ejectment and for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem and also for damages at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem. After the decree the deft, vacated the house on 21-1-1946.

( 3 ) THE plff. brought the present suit for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the house for the period from 1-2-1945, to 21-1-1946, the date on which he actually vacated the premises. He claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 15 per mensem. The lower Court held that the actual damages amounted to Rs. 10 per mensem at which the plff. could have possibly let out the house to somebody else. He, therefore, awarded a decree at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem.

( 4 ) IN this revision the plff. claims damages at the rate of Rs. 15 per mensem on the ground that since the deft, had held over after the date fixed in the notice, he should be deemed to have agreed to pay Rs. 15 per month as rent or damages. In support of his contention learned counsel, appearing for the plff. , has relied upon the following decisions: Munna Lal v. Buchchu Lal, A. I. R. (1) 1914 ALL. 1, S. Burge v. M. Md. Inamullah, A. I. R. (12) 1925 Oudh 189, Sunder Singh v. Ram Saran Das, A. I. R. (20) 1933 Lahore 61, Madan Mohan v. Bohra Ram Lal A. I. R. (21)1934 ALL. 115 : 1934 A. L. J. 421, and Parekh Nandlal v. Anant Govind, A. I. R. (27) 1940 nag. 140.

( 5 ) IN Munna Lal v Buchchu Lal A. I. R. (l) 1914 ALL. l, Banerji J. held that the question as to the rate of rent to be paid Subsequently "is a pure question of fact and that the Court has to consider what a fair and reasonable rent would be". The rent claimed in the notice was net held to be the measure of the fait rent.

( 6 ) IN S. Burge v. M. Mohd. Inamullah, A. I. R. (12) 1925 Oudh 189 it was held that when the plff. gave a notice to the lessee that he would be charged enhanced rent from a certain date and that if he did not accept the enhancement he was free to vacate the house by that date, it should be deemed that the lessee had agreed to pay the enhanced rent. That case was, therefore, a case in which a landlord wanted to keep the tenant as a tenant after a certain date, but on an enhanced rent and the tenant did not repudiate the notice and continued to remain as a tenant.

( 7 ) IN Sunder Singh v. Ram Saran Das, A. I. R. (20) 1933 Lah. 61, it was held that "ordinarily the proper measure of damages in cases where a tenant contumaciously holds over is twice the amount of the rent payable by the tenant". In that case, the rent was Rs. 2,500 per mensem and the plff. had demanded enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per mensem. The Court held that he could not be awarded damages at therate demanded in the notice but held that as in the province of the Punjab the practice had been that double the normal rent was taken as Suitable measure of damages in such cases, the double amount should be awarded. It was observed that the rule was borrowed from the English Law where the matter was regulated by statute (4 George II Ch. 28), but that the rule was not inflexible and less or more may be awarded as damages according to the circumstances. There is no such practice or rule of decreeing double the amount of the normal rent in this province.

( 8 ) IN Madan Mohan Garg v. Bohra Ram. Lal, A. I R. (21) 1934 ALL. 115: 1934 ALL. L. Jour 421, a landlord gave the te