Haridev Misra v. Jamunadas Agarwal & Ors

KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted.

This appeal arises out of a suit filed by respondent (plaintiff) landlord in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Gorakhpur, for eviction of the appellants (defendant) tenant from the house in the question on ground of failure to pay the rent and for realisation of arrears'of rent and electricity charges to Rs.2,560.60. It that amounting was pleaded the tenant was to pay a monthly rent of Rs.70 from Rs.3 apart per month as water and electricity charges and was in arrears since July, 1979 which he failed to The appellant contested the suit pay. mainly on the ground that the rate of rent was not Rs.70 month but it per was only Rs.40 and besides that he was provided with furniture the by landlord for which he was paying Rs.30 month. His further per case was that some time after the tenancy commenced, he returned the furniture.

The Judge, Small Causes Court, by his judgment dated 10th November, 1983, dismissed the suit holding that the rate of rent was Rs.40 per month and as such the was riot defaulter. appellant a The respondent filed a revision which was allowed by the Additional Dis-trict Judge, Gorakhpur. The Revisional Court held that the of rate rent was Rs.70 per month. The filed writ appellant a petition against the revisional order before the Allahabed High Court. The Court High allowed the writ petition, quashed the revisional order and remanded the case for deciding the revision petition afresh.

Thereafter, the Revisional Court again allowed the revision and set aside the judg- ‘r ment of the Trial Court and ordered ejectment. The Vi appellant again challenged the revisional order by way of a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court but the same was dismissed. Hence this appeal. The Trial Court primarily relied documents upon 39/C and 40/C produced by the defendants. Document 3910 is a receipt the by plain-tiff wherein details of Rs.73 are It is given. clearly mentioned in the receipt that Rs.40 were towards house rent, Rs.30 towards furniture charges and Rs.3 water and electricity charges. The plaintiff admitted the contents of receipt 39/C but he explained that Rs.30 towards fumi-ture charges were mentioned at the of the defendant. request The plaintiff strongly relied upon the rent note 97/C wherein monthly rent of the house was mentioned at Rs.70. The Trial Court rejected the rent that the same was not signed by the, defendant. note on the ground the 391C, the Trial Court diSmissed the Basing its findings on receipt

Revisional Court, on the other hand, found force in the con-suit. The

of that the rent note 97/C was signed by the tention the plaintiff

It held that the admission, if any, of the plaintiff in defendant. was

contradicted the rent note 97/C and as such cannot receipt 39/C is by

consideration. The Revisional Court thus differed from be taken into the Trial Court and ordered ejectment.

Before the counsel for the appellant Shri Prasad contends

us,

of clear admission of the respondent in the receipt 39/C that in the face Rs.40 month. He further contends‘that the rent of the house was per if taken into consideration, has been explained by the rent note, even and 40/0 According to him Rs.70 per month the receipts 39/C has been explained in the receipts to be mentioned in the rent note Rs.30 for the furniture. We find force in the Rs.40 as house rent and counsel. In the face of clear admission by the contention of the learned the finding of the Revisional'Court to respondent in the two receipts Rs.70 is erroneous. Faced with the effect that the monthly rent was

situation Shri Satish Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent this

attention to Section 3(i) of the UP. Urban Buildings invited our

of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter (Regulation contends that the tenancy was for a furnished called ‘the Act’) and failure to even Rs.30 in respect of furniture building and as such pay of Section 20(2)(a) of the Act and the would attract the provisions Section 3(i) and Section 20(2)(a) of appellant is liable to be ejected.

the Act are as under:

means a residential or non— “Section 3(i) “building’s, residential roofed structure and includes— garden), garages and out- (i) any land (including any houses, appurtenant to such building;

the landlord for use in such (ii) any furniture supplied by building;

fixtures affixed to such building for (iii) any fittings and the more beneficial enjoyment thereof”.

“that the tenant is in arrears of rent for “Section 20(2)(a).

four and has failed to pay the same to not less than months, month from the date of service the landlord within one upon him of a notice of demand.”

Shri Satish Chandra contends that definition of Section 3(i) includes building under any furniture supplied the landlord for such by use in

building and as such of non—payment part of the rent meant for furniture would amount to arrears of rent and the failed to the appellant having

pay same is liable to be ejected. In other words, he contends that it was a furnished house which was let-out to the appel~ proposition of law canvassed by Shri Satish Chandra Sections on the basis of

3(i) and 20(2)(a) of the Act, but there is no basis for the present him in

case to advance the same. It was never the of case the

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 912 .

of 1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.5.1988 of the Allahabad High Court in Misc. W.P. No. 7886 of 1985.

Yogeshwar Prasad and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Appellant.

Satish Chandra and Madan Lokur for the Respondents.