High CourtsDivision Bench(1927) 02 PAT CK 0027

Bulak Chand vs Padumchand

Patna High Court · Decided on 3 February 1927 · Citation: AIR 1927 Patna 395

HON’BLE JUDGES
Adami, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 420 words

Adami, J.—The opposite party instituted a suit for the recovery of rent for ejectment of the petitioner from a certain house, and it appears, also future damages. Notice had been issued on the petitioner requiring him to leave the house failing which rent at the rate of Rs. 10 would be charged for the period during which he remained in occupation.

2.

The court decreed the suit for rent but gave no decree for damages in respect of the occupation of the house after the expiry of the period allowed by the notice. Thereafter the opposite party instituted a suit for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 10 per month for 22 months; that is to say, for damages covering the period from the date of the expiry of the notice up to the date of delivery of possession. This suit was instituted in the Court of Small Causes and it was decreed at the rate of Rs. 7 a month for 22 months.

3.

The learned Small Cause court Judge-states in his judgment that it is an admitted fact that from the date of the decree till the date of delivery of possession the period comes to 22 months Now the date of the decree was the 24th November 1925, and the date of delivery of possession was the 4th January 1926, so that only about a month, and a half elapsed between the decree and the delivery of possession. It is quite clear that the learned Small Cause Court Judge was labouring under a mistake.

4.

As a matter of fact the plaint in this suit states that in the previous suit the opposite party claimed damages with respect to the period after the notice had expired. That relief had not been granted in the previous suit, and, therefore, it could not be again asked for with respect to the period before the decree in the previous suit was passed and the court was not competent to grant it. All that the opposite party was entitled to was damages for the period from the date of the decree to the delivery of possession and that it is a period of 42 days.

5.

Therefore this application must be allowed and the decree of the Court below modified, allowing the opposite party a decree at the rate of Rs. 7 per month for 42 days.

6.

The petitioner will get his proportionate costs in both Courts. The costs in this Court are assessed at two gold mohurs.