A.P.MISRA
Balram – Appellant
Versus
Baikunthi Devi – Respondent
A.P. Misra, J.
1. The present civil revision is directed as against the order dated 1st April, 1988 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court by virtue of which the plaintiff's suit for eviction and for recovery of part of rent due has been decreed.
2. The plaintiff's suit for ejectment on the ground of default with the allegation that the applicant was the tenant in the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and he was liable to pay, in addition to the said rent, the water tax and sewage tax and since he fell in arrears and did not deposit the same a notice was served on him and inspite of the notice since he did not pay, a suit for the same was filed. The case of the defendant, however, is that though he is a tenant of the premises in question but he did not commit any default. In fact, he deposited the rent under section 30 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act when the landlord himself refused to accept the rent. It was the case that initially rent was Rs. 55/- and subsequently enhancement was made from time to time on account of the increase in tax. Thus the rent of Rs. 100/- included the tax payable by him. It is the case of the defendant while depositing
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.