the trial companyrt found that the expenditure claimed by the appellant on repairing the premises had number been proved.
l so per month for the purpose of his cloth business that the appellant had number paid the arrears of rent totaling rs.
it found further that the appellant was number entitled to the benefit of s. 13 1 of the act as he had failed to deposit the monthly rent regularly during the pendency of the suit.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th october 1979 of the madhya pradesh high court indore bench in second appeal number 148 of 1976.
the respondent then preferred a second appeal and during the pendency of the appeal the high companyrt permitted the respondent to amend the plaint so that references to the tenanted premises number included the entire accommodation claimed by the appellant in companysequence the suit number related to that accommodation.
on receiving the writ of summons in the suit the appellant deposited the arrears of rent in companypliance with s. 13 1 of the act but further companypliance with s. 13 1 was number effected in as much as the rent which should have been deposited regularly from month to month was number deposited for several months.
in his written statement the appellant pleaded that the respondent had described the tenanted premises incorrectly that in fact the premises companysisted of an entire shop a kotha behind the shop and a verandah in front of the shop that the expenditure on repairs to the premises undertaken by the appellant had to be adjusted against the arrears of rent and that the numberice dated october 211969 terminating the tenancy was invalid.
2550 for the period june 26 1968 to october 11 1969 and that he was therefore liable to eviction on the ground set forth in section 12 1 a of the madhya pradesh accommodation companytrol act 1961.
thereafter the high companyrt by its judgment and decree dated october 12 1979 allowed the second appeal.
sunita kirplani for the appellant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3356 of 1979.
k. garg s.k.
the respondent filed an appeal and that appeal was dismissed.
the plaint a recited that the appellant had taken a portion of a shop and a verandah on the ground floor on rent at rs.
singh and anjeet kumar for the respondent.
the respondent as landlord filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant tenant on the ground that the appellant had neither paid number tendered the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him.
k. jain b.p.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak j. this is a tenants appeal by special leave against a decree of the high companyrt of madhya pradesh allowing the landlords second appeal in a suit for eviction.
gambhir mrs.
but it agreed with the appellant that the respondent had number correctly described the extent of the premises in the numberice terminating the tenancy and holding that the tenancy had number been validly terminated it dismissed the suit.
made and shall thereafter companytinue to deposit or pay month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
