Skip to content


Lala Birj Lal Vs. Choudhuri Muhammad Ibrahim - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All824; 87Ind.Cas.713
AppellantLala Birj Lal
RespondentChoudhuri Muhammad Ibrahim
Excerpt:
- - under that provision of law only an unsatisfied decree held by a defendant can be pleaded by way of a set-off. it has been urged that having satisfied the decree held by the zamindar the defendant -was placed in the same position as the zamindar himself and was thereby entitled to claim a set-off......have been given credit for.3. the abovementioned two items were paid in this way. the zamindar held decrees for rent against the ex-proprietary tenant. the non-payment of the decrees would have involved the ejectment not only of the ex-proprietary tenant, but also of the appellant. the appellant says that he, having paid these two items in order to satisfy the decree held by the zamindar, was entitled to claim a set-off against the rent payable by himself. this would be so but for the provision of section 193, clause (g) of the tenancy act. under that provision of law only an unsatisfied decree held by a defendant can be pleaded by way of a set-off. it has been urged that having satisfied the decree held by the zamindar the defendant -was placed in the same position as the zamindar.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. The appellant in this case has my full sympathy, but I am unable to help him,

2. It appears that the respondent's father, who was an ex-proprietary tenant, sub-let the holding to the appellant. The respondent brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for recovery of arrears of rent for three years. The defendant pleaded payment of five items and his plea of payment succeeded in the Court of first instance. On appeal the learned District -fudge has allowed only one item and has disallowed the remaining four. So far as the, question of fact is involved, viz. whether the appellant has succeeded in proving payment, this Court cannot entertain it. The only question before this Court is whether the two sums of Rs. 75 and Rs. 144-5-0, which were admittedly expended by the appellant, should have been given credit for.

3. The abovementioned two items were paid in this way. The zamindar held decrees for rent against the ex-proprietary tenant. The non-payment of the decrees would have involved the ejectment not only of the ex-proprietary tenant, but also of the appellant. The appellant says that he, having paid these two items in order to satisfy the decree held by the zamindar, was entitled to claim a set-off against the rent payable by himself. This would be so but for the provision of Section 193, Clause (g) of the Tenancy Act. Under that provision of law only an unsatisfied decree held by a defendant can be pleaded by way of a set-off. It has been urged that having satisfied the decree held by the zamindar the defendant -was placed in the same position as the zamindar himself and was thereby entitled to claim a set-off. In my opinion it was with the idea of simplifying procedure in rent cases that the enactment, viz., Clause (g), Section 193 of the Tenancy Act was drafted. Whatever be the reason for the rule the rule itself is clear, and it is only a decree held by the defendant himself that can be pleaded and not a payment made under the circumstances of this case.

4. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //