V. R. NEWASKAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Ram Narayan sued the defendant Benji for ejectment and arrears of rent. The claim for ejectment was based on two grounds, (1) that he needed the premises for his own use within the meaning of Section 4 (g) of the Madhya Bharat sthan Niyantran Vidhan and (2) that the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent in spite of service of notice making a demand for the arrears.

( 3 ) THE defence taken by the defendant was that the plaintiff himself lived in a house in Malharganj and so far as plaintiff's children arc concerned they occupy two blocks in the house in question. The plaintiff therefore was not in genuine need of the house for his own use. As regards the defendant's failure to pay the arrears in spite of notice it was contended that the rent agreed to between the parties was Rs. 15/- P. M. and not Rs. 20/- P. M. as demanded by the plaintiff in his notice. He further contended that even before the receipt of this notice the defendant had offered to pay the arrears at the rate of Rs. 15/- P. M. after deducting the money order charges but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. Even after the receipt of the notice dated 14-1-1950 he offered to pay the arrears but the plaintiff did not accept the same.

( 4 ) THE trial court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in genuine need of the premises in question for his own use within the meaning of Section 4 (g) of the Act. He further found that die rent agreed to between the parties was not Rs. 20/- P. M. but it was only Rs. 15/- P. M. The arrears therefore, according to him, were not Rs. 380/- as demanded by the plaintiff but they amounted only to Rs. 285/ -. He held that the plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant making a demand of arrears of rent and that the defendant had failed to pay the arrears. He therefore granted a decree for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 285/-and also for ejectment.

( 5 ) THE defendant alone preferred appeal against that decision and as far as I can see that no cross-objection or cross-appeal was filed by the plaintiff. The learned district Judge considered the propriety of the decree for ejectment. According to him the plaintiff had demanded arrears at the rate of Rs. 20/-P. M. In the past similar demand had been made. The defendant had sent the arrears by money order computing the rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- P. M. and this money order was refused by the plaintiff. Reference in this connection was made by the learned District Judge to money order coupon Exs, D/2 and D/3. He held that inasmuch as the plaintiff was not prepared to accept the arrears at the rate of Rs. 15/- P. M. as was evident from his conduct and had made a demand of arrears in the notice dated 14-1-1950 at the rate of Rs. 207- P. M. , the defendant cannot be said to have committed any mistake in not making the payment in pursuance of that notice. The decree for ejectment for non-compliance with such a notice cannot, according to that Court, lead to the consequences of his being ejected. He, therefore, allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the decree in so far as defendant's ejectment was concerned.

( 6 ) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff.

( 7 ) MR. Dubey for the plaintiff contended that the learned district judge has committed an error of law in refusing to grant the decree for ejectment when he comes to a definite conclusion that the defendant was in arrears to the tune of Rs. 2857-, the plaintiff had served a notice upon the defendant calling upon him to make the payment of the arrears though the amount that he claimed was in excess of this amount found by the court and according to the terms of Section 4 (a) the defendant was bound to pay whatever be the arrears after the receipt of a written notice demanding the arrears. According to the learned counsel the word meaning 'demand' has been used advisedly without reference to whether the demand b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document