The tenant remains liable for arrears of rent despite claims of adjustment if no counterclaim or set-off is established.

1. This is a tenant's second appeal from the decision of the Civil Judge, Ghazipur confirming a decree for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent from him. The plaintiff - respondents Mohammad Yusuf Abbbasi and others alleged that they were the owners of the house and the defendant - appellant Jagarnath Ram their tenant on a rent of Rs. 20/- per month from the year 1951; that the defendant appellant had not paid any rent from 1-12-1953 till the date of the suit; that he had been served with a notice demanding rent and terminating his tenancy but had not paid the rent; hence the suit. The appellant admitted the tenancy but alleged that the rent was Rs. 3/- and not Rs. 20/- per month; that no rent was due as it had been adjusted against the price of goods purchased by the plaintiffs from the appellant's shop and the expenses incurred by him on repairs of the house. He also contended that the notice of demand and the termination of tenancy was not in accordance with law.

2. The trial court recorded the statements of the parties under O. 10 R. 2, C.P.C. Mohammad Yusuf Abbasi, one of the plaintiffs, stated that the defendant - appellant originally took the shop on rent from his mother Sadrulnissa Bibi in the year 1940 but he (Mohammad Yusuf Abbasi) did not know on what rent. He further stated that after the death of his mother in 1950 he (Mohammad Yusuf) added one more shop to the old shop and the defendant made an oral contract with him settling the rent at Rs. 20/- per month. He also alleged that this agreement was made in the presence of two persona whom he named. The defendant in his statement under O. 10 R. 2 stated that he took the shop on Rs. 3/- per month as rent from Sadrulnissa Bibi in 1940, and after her death he continued as the tenant of the plaintiffs and paid the same rent to them. He further stated that he supplied goods to the plaintiff and the price of the articles was set off against rent and this fact had been endorsed by the plaintiffs in their"diary."

3. The learned Munsif disbelieved the plaintiff - respondent's story that they had constructed an additional shop after the death of their mother but also rejected the appellant's case that the rent was its. Rs. 3/- per month and disbelieved his story of adjustment of rent against the price of goods alleged to have been purchased by the landlord. He held that the shop had been rented by the appellant on Rs. 20/- per month and he had failed to pay the arrears. Accordingly he decreed the suit for the ejectment and recovery of rent. On appeal the Civil Judge confirmed these findings and the decree of the trial court. The appellant has come to this Court in second appeal.

4. Gopi Nath, learned counsel for the appellant advanced four arguments in support of this appeal. First, he contended that as the plaintiff - respondents' story of addition of a new shop and consequent enhancement of rent had been disbelieved, the appellant's case that the rent was Rs. 3/- per month should have been accepted by the courts below. Learned counsel argued that the Civil Judge had tried to explain away the plaintiff's statement under O. 10 R. 2 by surmises and conjectures for which there was no basis. I have read the statements of the parties under O. 10 R. 2 and also the remarks of the learned Judge. He took the view that the plaintiff's statement was either made under a misapprehension or wrongly recorded by the trial court. This was pure speculation on the part of the Civil Judge for which there was no basis. The statement of Mohammad Yusuf is crystal clear and relates a definite story about which there could be no misapprehension in His mind. Statements under O. 10 R. 3 are usually made in the presence of cou