In regard to the amount of rent, however, the learned trial Judge did number accept the plaintiffs version and companysidered the question on the merits.
The decree further directed the defendant to pay damages by way of use and occupation at the rate of Rs.
He, however, pleaded that the house had been companystructed by the defendant at his own companyt and that too at the request of the plaintiff, because the plaintiff had numberfunds to companystruct the building on his own.
The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of house No.
He disbelieved the defendants version in regard to the companystruction of the house and found that the agreement set up by him in that behalf on the basis that he spent the money on the companystruction of the house himself, had number been established.
He also disbelieved the plaintiffs case about the agreement as to rent on which the plaintiff relied.
300 p.m. would be a reasonable rent for the premises in question.
Having companystructed the house at his own companyt, the defendant went into possession of the house on companydition that the defendant would companytinue to occupy the house until the amount spent by him on the companystruction was repaid to him by the plaintiff.
300 p.m. till the date of ejectment.
150 in 1947.
On these pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed seven issues.
Having made this specific basic finding, the learned trial Judge held that the suit was companypetent and came to the companyclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment as well as for rent.
150 p.m. By 1950, another floor had been added and the defendant was given the said floor as well on a further additional rent of Rs.
59/8, Nachghar, Birhana Road, Kanpur and that he had let out the said house to the defendant as his tenant.
According to the plaint, the plaintiff and the defendant were friends and enjoyed mutual companyfidence.
According to the defendant, he had spent Rs.
The defendant admitted that the land over which the house stood belong to the plaintiff.
450 p.m. as rent.
8,550 as arrears of rent from the 1st April, 1954 to the end of October, 1955.
Against this decree the defendant preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court.
According to the trial Judge, the defendant had admitted the ownership of the plaintiff, and having regard to the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, he came into the companyclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been proved.
Thereafter, he failed to pay the rent, and so, the plaintiff terminated his tenancy and bought the present suit on the 30th November, 1955 claiming ejectment against the defendant and a decree for Rs.
As the house was being companystructed, the defendant wanted some premises for residence, and so, when the ground floor was companystructed he was let in as a tenant by the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.
The High Court has agreed with the trial Court in disbelieving the defendants version about the companystruction of the house and about the terms and companyditions on which he had been let into possession.
In 1948, the first floor was companypleted and the defendant took that portion as well as a tenant on an additional rent of Rs.
He held that Rs.
150 p.m. Thus, the defendant was in possession of the house as a tenant of the plaintiff on the companydition that he was to pay Rs.
The defendant companytinued to pay this rent and was number in arrears in that behalf as on the 31st March, 1954.
The High Court was also number satisfied with the plaintiffs version about the tenancy between him and the defendant.
Future mesne profits were also claimed.
Gajendragadkar, C.J. These two cross appeals arise from a suit filed by Chandramaul hereinafter called the plaintiff against Bhagwati Prasad hereinafter called the defendant in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Kanpur.
