JUDGMENT

Abdul Qadir, J. - Two connected appeals will be disposed of by this judgment, as both of them arise out of the same suit. One Karar Hussain] owns certain shops in Delhi, four of which had been let to one Kalian for several years. On 21st November 1919, the landlord gave a notice to Kalian to quit the shops by the 24th December 1919, or to pay enhanced rent. On the 19th January 191 he leased these very shops to Jowahaz Singh, the present plaintiff-respondent, for 10 years, by a registered lease, in which the latter was authorised to take possession by ejacting Kalian privately or through Court and to occupy the shops for the period spipulated on payment of rent of Rs. 16 per mensem on the first of every lunar month, A condition was introduced in Clause 8 of the lease to the effect that in case na dehindi (non-payment) of rent on the first of every lunar month the period of 10 years will be cancelled and the landlord will be entitled to evict the lessee at once and to re-enter into possession. The rent for the first month was admittedly paid. The rent for the second month, which fell due on the 22nd February 1920, calculated according to lunar months, was not paid in time but was sent by money-order on the 6th March 1920, i.e., about a fortnight after the due date. In the meanwhile Karar Hussain had sent a notice, dated the 4th March, 1920, to Jawahar Singh, informing him that the lease stood cancelled on account of his default in payment of rent at the proper time. Jawahar Singh thereupon brought a suit on the 26th March, 1920, praying for a declaration that the lease had not been cancelled and asking also for possession of the shops by ejectment of Kalian. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit against Karar Hussain and also ordered the ejectment of Kalian. Both the latter appealed to the District Judge, who dismissed their appeals. Each one of them has now preferred a second appeal to this Court. Kalian is represented by Mr. Mool Chand and Karar Hussain by Mr. Moti Sagar, while Lala Sardha Kam appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. The case for the appellants has been argued before us by Mr. Mool Chand, who says that the interests of his client are identical with those of Karar Hussain, because the latter has not executed a fresh long lease in favour of Kallan.

3. The main question in this appeal is whether the Courts below were justified in coming to the relief of the plaintiff as Court of equity. In this connection the following points are worth consideration. It has been found as a matter of fact by both the Courts below that, according to a well-known custom of Delhi, the plaintiff has paid the sum of Rs. 1,000 by way of nazarana to Karar Hussain before securing the lease in his favour. It has also been found by the Courts below that the bargain which Karar Hussain struck with the plaintiff was not an equitable one. The trial Court expressed an opinion that the terms of the lease were "very severe, one-sided and unconscionable." Similarly the lower appellate Court has expressed an opinion that "the landlord's action in terminating the lease was in the circumstances fraudulent, oppressive, harsh and vindictive." We do not think it is necessary for us in the face of such decided expressions of opinion by the Courts, which were fully coversant with all the facts of the case, to add any comment of our own on the conduit of the appellant in this case. It strikes us that in all probability the lease executed by Karar Hussain in favour of Jowahar Singh, plaintiff, was intended as a sort of trap for him. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the terms of the lease were not explained to him. The trial Court held that the plaintiff did not fully realise the significance of the terms introduced in the deed. The lower Appellate Court, however, held that he must be presumed to know the terms of the contract and was bound by them, but that the eighth clause in the lease was pinch and that it seemed to be against equity and