TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of ₹ 1,933-5-4 though confirming the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession. 2. The trial Court had dismissed the claim for the said amount on the ground that the tenant had under a registered lease deed (Exhibit 34) dated December 18, 1958 executed by the petitioner in favour of the former owner Balubai Dulichand, paid a sum of ₹ 2,500/- towards the rent of the premises at the rate of ₹ 700/- per annum for four years and had agreed to pay ₹ 300/- at the end of the said period. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs, who purchased the property under the register sale deed dated August 20, 1959 (Ex. 33), were not, therefore, entitled to recover any rent from the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of this. I hold that the tenant has paid ₹ 2,500/- towards the rent to his then landlady Balubai and he is not a defaulter and at this stage the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any rent 3. The learned Assistant Judge set aside the said finding for the reasons stated by him as follows. Before the sale deed he had already paid the rent in advance for the period mentioned in the suit to Balubai and therefore according to him he was not liable to pay rent as claimed from him. But section 50 of the Transfer of property of any immovable property Act excuses payment of rent and profits of any immovable property which means that the rent or profits should have become due. If before they become due, anything is paid in adva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in advance which in the circumstances, was a mere loan to the lessor . this case actually supports the argument advanced by Mr. Joshi, as in the present case, it is expressly stated in the rent note itself that the amount was paid as rent. the benefit of section 50 must be, therefore, given to the tenant. Rangoon decision which merely refers to those tow decisions. Does not carry the argument of Mr. Shrikhande any further. 5. the learned Assistant Judge relied on a decision of the Rajasthan High court in Katha Bhatt v. Chotey Lal, Which again does not support the argument that S. 50 will not apply where the amount is paid as advance rent, as contended by Mr. Shrikhande, Mr. Shrikhande himself fairly stated that that decision does not su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
