Haridev Misra v. Jamunadas Agarwal & Ors

Supreme Court of India · 1989 INSC 63 · 1989

Coram: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, A.M. AHMADI, KULDIP SINGH

HARIDEVMISRA v. JAMUNADASAGARWAL&ORS. FEBRUARY 17, 1989 (K. JAGANNATHASHE'ITY, A.M. AHMADIAND KULDIPSINGH, JJ.] U.P. UrbanBuilding(RegulationofLettingRentandEviction)Act, I972—Secti0ns3(i)and20(2)(a)——Evictionoftenantfordefault—Landlora'raisinga newplea thattenancy wasforfurnishedhouse— Whetherpermissibletoraisesuchplea. Therespondent-landlordfiledasuitforevictionoftheappellants-tenantfromthehouseinquestiononthegroundoffailuretopayrent andforrealisationofarrearsofrent. WhiletherespondentpleadedthattherateofrentwasRs.70permonth,theappellantcontendedthat itwasonlyRs.40andnotRs.70,andthathewaspayingRs.30permonthforthefurniture,providedbythelandlordwhichhereturned sometimeafterthetenancycommenced. Thetrialcourtdismissedthesuitholdingthattherateofrentwas Rs.40permonthand,assuch,theappellantwasnotdefaulter.Inthe revisionfiledbytherespondent,theRevisionalCourtheldthattherent wasRs.70permonth. TheappellantfiledawritpetitionbeforetheHighCourt,which quashedtherevisionalorderandremandedthecasefordecidingthe revisionpetitionafresh.Thereafter,therevisionalcourtagainallowedtherevision. Theappellantchallenged the revisionalorderbeforetheHighCourtwhichdismissedthesame. Intheappeal,byspecialleave,itwascontendedonbehalfofthe appellant-tenantthatinthefaceofclearadmissionoftherespondentinthereceipt,therentofthehousewasRs.40permonth,andthatthe amountofRs.70permonthmentionedintherentnotehadbeenex- plained in the receipts, to be Rs.40 as house rent and Rs.30 for furniture. Onbehalfoftherespondent,itwascontendedthatthetenancy 756 Jppw‘msk ‘l m“ ”\.A""‘ ..-¢‘~"’~ \ 1 —" if t HARIDEVMISRAv. JAMUNADASAGARWAL 757 wasforafurnishedbuildingandfailuretopayapartoftherent,in respect offurniture, would attractthe provisions ofs. 20(2)(a) of theU.P.UrbanBuilding(RegulationofLettingRentandEviction)Act, 1972andtheappellantwasliabletobeejected.Itwasalsocontended thatthetenancybeingofafurnishedhousethetenantcouldnotunder law,unilaterallysurrenderpartoftenancy. Allowingtheappeal, HELD: Itwasneverthecaseoftherespondentatanystagethat furnishedhousewasgivenonrenttotheappellant.Inthenoticebefore ﬁlingthesuitandintheplaint,itwasspeciﬁcallypleadedthatrentof thehousewasRs.70permonthandthetenantwasinarrears.Inthe writtenstatement, appellanttooka clearstandthattherentofthe housewasonlyRs.40andRs.30wasforthefurniture,whichaccording tohim,wasreturnedafterthecommencementofthetenancy.[760C-D] Inthefaceofclearpleadingsontherecord,itisimpermissibleto raisethepleathatthelandlordrentedafurnishedhousetothetenant. Itwouldbecontrarytothepleadings.Thatapart,neitherbeforethe trialcourtnorbeforetheRevisionalCourtandnotevenbeforetheHigh Courtthispleawasraised.[760F] Thetrialcourtrelieduponthe rentreceipts, 39/C and40/C, producedbytheappellant.Itwasclearlymentionedinthereceipt39/C that Rs.40 were towards house rent and Rs.30 towards furniture charges and Rs.3 towards water and electricity charges. The res- pondent admitted the contents of the receipt but explained that Rs.30towardsfurniturechargeswasmentionedattherequestofthe tenant.[758G-H] Inthefaceoftheclearadmissionby,the,respondentinthetwo receipts,theﬁndingoftheRevisionalCourtthatthemonthlyrentwas Rs.70iserroneous.[759D] CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppealNo. 912 of1989. . FromtheJudgmentandOrderdated11.5.1988oftheAllahabad HighCourtinMisc.W.P.No.7886of1985. YogeshwarPrasadandMrs.ShobhaDikshitfortheAppellant. 758 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS . [1989] 1 S.C.R. SatishChandraandMadanLokurfortheRespondents. TheJudgmentoftheCourtwasdeliveredby KULDIPSINGH,J. Specialleavegranted. This appeal arises outofa suit filedby respondent (plaintiff)landlordintheCourtofJudge,SmallCauses,Gorakhpur,foreviction oftheappellants(defendant)tenantfromthehouseinquestiononthe groundoffailuretopaytherentandforrealisationofarrears'ofrent andelectricitychargesamountingtoRs.2,560.60.Itwaspleadedthat the tenantwastopaya monthlyrentofRs.70apartfromRs.3per monthaswaterandelectricitychargesandwasinarrearssinceJuly,1979whichhefailedtopay.Theappellantcontestedthesuitmainlyon thegroundthattherateofrentwasnotRs.70permonthbutitwas onlyRs.40 and besides thathe was providedwithfurniturebythe landlordforwhichhewaspayingRs.30permonth.Hiscasefurther was that some time afterthe tenancycommenced, he returnedthe furniture. The Judge, Small Causes Court, by his judgmentdated 10th November,1983,dismissedthesuitholdingthattherateofrentwas Rs.40permonthandas suchtheappellantwasriotadefaulter.The respondentfiledarevisionwhichwasallowedbytheAdditionalDis- trictJudge, Gorakhpur. The RevisionalCourtheldthattherateof rentwasRs.70permonth.TheappellantfiledawritpetitionagainsttherevisionalorderbeforetheAllahabedHighCourt.TheHighCourt allowedthewritpetition,quashedtherevisionalorderandremanded the case for deciding the revision petition afresh. Thereafter, the RevisionalCourtagainallowedtherevisionand set aside thejudg-mentoftheTrialCourtandorderedejectment.Theappellantagain challengedtherevisionalorderbywayofa writpetitionbeforethe AllahabadHighCourtbutthesamewasdismissed.Hencethisappeal. TheTrialCourtprimarilyreliedupondocuments39/Cand40/C producedbythedefendants.Document3910isareceiptbytheplain-tiffwhereindetailsofRs.73aregiven. Itisclearlymentionedinthe receiptthatRs.40weretowardshouserent,Rs.30towardsfurniture chargesandRs.3waterandelectricitycharges.Theplaintiffadmittedthecontentsofreceipt39/CbutheexplainedthatRs.30towardsfumi- ture charges were mentioned at the request ofthe defendant. The plaintiffstronglyreliedupontherentnote97/Cwhereinmonthlyrent ofthehousewasmentionedatRs.70.TheTrialCourtrejectedtherent Vi ‘r 5 HARIDEVMISRAv. JAMUNADASAGARWAL[SINGH,J.] 759 note onthegroundthatthesame wasnotsignedbythe,defendant. Basingitsfindingsonthereceipt391C,theTrialCourtdiSmissedthe suit.TheRevisionalCourt,ontheotherhand,foundforceinthecon- tentionofthe plaintiffthat the rent note 97/C was signed by the defendant. Itwasheldthattheadmission, ifany, oftheplaintiffin receipt39/Ciscontradictedbytherentnote97/Candassuchcannot betakenintoconsideration.TheRevisionalCourtthusdifferedfrom theTrialCourtandorderedejectment. Beforeus, the counsel forthe appellantShriPrasadcontends thatinthefaceofclearadmissionoftherespondentinthereceipt39/C therentofthehousewasRs.40permonth.Hefurthercontends‘that therentnote,eveniftakenintoconsideration,hasbeenexplainedby the receipts 39/C and 40/0 According to him Rs.70 per month mentionedintherentnotehasbeenexplainedinthereceiptstobe Rs.40ashouserentandRs.30forthefurniture.Wefindforceinthe contentionofthelearnedcounsel.Inthefaceofclearadmissionbythe respondentinthetworeceiptsthefindingoftheRevisional'Courtto theeffectthatthemonthlyrentwasRs.70is erroneous. Facedwith thissituationShriSatishChandra,learnedcounselfortherespondent invited our attention to Section 3(i) ofthe UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called ‘theAct’)andcontendsthatthetenancywasfora furnished buildingandas suchfailuretopayevenRs.30inrespectoffurniture would attracttheprovisionsofSection20(2)(a)ofthe Actandthe appellantisliabletobeejected. Section3(i)andSection20(2)(a)of theActareasunder: “Section 3(i) “building’s, means a residential or non— residentialroofedstructureandincludes— (i) any land (including any garden), garages and out- houses,appurtenanttosuchbuilding; (ii) anyfurnituresuppliedbythelandlordforuseinsuch building; (iii)any ﬁttingsandfixturesaffixedtosuch buildingfor themorebeneficialenjoymentthereof”. “Section20(2)(a).“thatthetenantisinarrearsofrentfor notlessthanfourmonths,andhasfailedtopaythesameto the landlordwithinone monthfromthe date ofservice uponhimofanoticeofdemand.” 760 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R. Shri Satish Chandracontends thatdefinitionofbuildingunderSection3(i)includesanyfurnituresuppliedbythelandlordforuseinsuch buildingandas suchnon—paymentofpartoftherentmeantforfurniturewouldamounttoarrearsofrentand theappellanthavingfailed to pay the same is liable to be ejected. Inotherwords, hecontendsthatitwasafurnishedhousewhichwaslet-outtotheappel~ propositionoflawcanvassed byShriSatish ChandraonthebasisofSections3(i)and20(2)(a)oftheAct,butthereisnobasisforhiminthepresent case toadvance the same. Itwasneverthecase ofthe N.P.V. Appealallowed.