Motilal vs Badrilal

Chaturvedi, J.—The Plaintiff had been at the material date a tenant of the Defendant. His suit for recovery of Rs. 84-5-0 against the Defendant for impairs of the pipe in the house has been dismissed by the Small Cause Court, Indore. This is, his revision against the order of the said Court.

The Municipality, Indore, sent a notice (Ex P/4) on 28-7-1952 to the Defendant, the house owner, stating that his private pipe in the house was in disorder and water was coming out of it and flowing. over the land; the pipe should be put in order within 24 hours, otherwise the connection would be cut off.'' Somehow or other this notice was received by the Plaintiff who sent a notice to the Defendant on 29-7-1952. The Defendant in his reply on 31-7-1952 stated that he was willing to undertake repairs and that the Plaintiff should not undertake it. It is, however, alleged in the plaint that the Plaintiff had already purchased the material and, therefore, he got repairs Completed. The total expenses came to about Rs. 73-2-0

It is important to note that at that time litigation was going on between that Plaintiff and the; Defendant. The Defendant had filed a suit for ejectment against the Plaintiff and had given a notice to the Plaintiff to vacate the house on 22-4-1950 terminating the lease on that date. The suit for ejectment; was dismissed by the trial Court and then the first appeal was also dismissed; but on 28-7-1952 the second appeal was allowed by this Court and the suit; was decreed. It may be noted that on the date when the suit for ejectment was decreed the Municipality''s notice to repair the pipe was received. It is then stated that against the order of single Judge of the High Court a special appeal by the present Plaintiff was filed which was dismissed on 16-12-1953.

It is clear from the facts aforesaid that the Plaintiff had ceased to be,a tenant at the latest on the date when the Municipality had sent the notice to (he house-owner for repairing the pipe. Therefore; the Court below held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of Clause (f) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The only point that is pressed by Mr. C.B. Sanghi is that u/s 70 of the Indian Contract Act the Plaintiff could recover the money. Section 70 of the Contract Act provides:

Where a person lawfully docs anything for, another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or restore, the thing so done or delivered.

It will be obvious that three conditions are required to established a right of action at the suit of a per son who does anything for another; (1) the thing must be done lawfully; (2) it must be done by a person not intending to act gratuitously; and (3) the person for whom the act is done must enjoy the benefit of it''! It is not disputed that the house owner or the Defendant has enjoyed the benefit of the repaired pipe after vacating of the house by the Plaintiff. It may also be taken that the Plaintiff in spending money on the repairs of the pipe did not intend to do so gratuitously. The only question therefore, is, whether the Plaintiff had lawfully incurred the expenditure on the pipe, on behalf of the Defendant?

In the Law Lexicon of India by Ramnatha layer "the word ''lawful'' has been defined as meaning that which, in its substance is sanctioned or justified by law, as opposed to unlawful or illegal. ''Lawful'' implies confirmable to or enjoyed by law.

In the case of Chedilal v. Bhagwandas ILR 11 All 234(A), it was observed by Straight and Mahmood, JJ. that the legislature intended something when it used the word ''lawful'' and that it had in contemplation, cases in which a person held such relation to another as either directly to create or by implication reasonably to justify an inference that some act done-''for another person the party doing the act was entitled to look for compensation for it from the person for whom it was done.

In the present case, in my opinion the relations were already strained, litigation was going on and the Defendant had already asked the Plaintiff not to incur any expenditure on the repairs of the pipe ''as he himself was willing to undertake all the repairs. He had also warned him that in case any expenditure was incurred by the Plaintiff, he himself would not be responsible for it. Consequently, hero there was no such relation between the parties as ''Would create any such right or from which it could be reasonably inferred that undertaking by the repairs of the pipe on behalf of the Defendant the Plaintiff was entitled to look for compensation for it from the Defendant. If the Plaintiff, as mere volunteer, chose to put his hands into his pockets and to pay a sum of money to repairers, it was his own look out as it will be deemed that the repair was undertaken not for the Defendant but for himself, arid in these Circumstances he would not be entitled to claim benefits of Section 70 of the Contract Act.

It is not in every case in which a man has benefited by the money of another that an obligation to repay that money arises Ram Tuhul Singh v. Biseshwar Lal 2 Ind App 131 (PC) (B) and Ruabon Steamship Co. Ltd. v. London Assurance 1900 AC 6 (C)

It was pointed out in Punjabai Bhilasa Vs. Bhagvandas Kisandas, that the term lawful''. has a wider meaning than (the term ''legal'' ''legal'' is what is in conformity with the letter or rules of the law as administered in (he Court. ''Lawful'' is what is in conformity with the principles or Spirit of the law whether moral or judicial. It was also ''pointed out in that case that in ascertaining whether an act is ''lawfully'' done for another the test to be applied, should be, as laid down in ILR 11 All 284 which I have already discussed above.

In Suchand Chosal v. Balaram Mardana ILR 88 Cal 1(E), it was observed by Jenkins C.J., that it is especially incumbent on final Courts of fact guarded and circumstances in their conclusions, one not countenance acts or payments that are

In the present case, as I have already stated above it is not shown that the Plaintiff had either lawful authority to undertake repairs of the pipe or was under any legal obligation to undertake it. The money spent on repairs to the pipe cannot, under the circumstances of the present case, be considered-to have been made lawfully and cannot be placed on higher footing than an officious or voluntary payment. Consequently, I think that Section 70 of the Contract Act has 110 application to the facts of the present case. The revision will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.