BHAGWATI PRASAD versus SHRI CHANDRAMAUL

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 286 · Decided: 19-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHAGWATI PRASAD 
v. 
SURI CHANDRAMAUL 
October 19, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
~ractice & Procedure-Detajls in pleadings-When dee1ned sufficient. 
Licensee-Ejected, if liable to pay 1nesne profits. 
A 
The respondent filed a suit alleging that he was the owner of a house 
let out to the appellant 'as a tenant and claimed a decree for the appel- c 
!ant's ejectmenl, arrears of rent and future mesne profits. The appellant 
admitted that the land over which the house had been 
constructed be-
longed to the respondent but pleaded that the house 
had been cons-
tructed by the appellant at his own· cost on the condition that he would 
continue to occupy it until the amount spent by him on the construction 
was repaid to him by the respondent. 
The trial court disbelieved 
the 
appellant's version and also disbelieved the agreement as to the rent on ' 
which the respondent relied and held that the 
relationship of landlord 
D 
and tenant had been proved and that the 
respondent was entitled to a 
decree for ejectment as well as to a reduced amount by \vay of rent and 
directed the appellant to pay damages by way of use and occupation till 
the date of ejectment. 
On appeal the High Court held that the appel-
lant must be deemed to have been in possession of the house as a 
licensee and treating the respondent's claim for 
ejectment on the basis 
that the appellant was proved to be a licensee of the premises. the High · 
Court confirmed the decree for ejectment; but it set aside the decree to 
E 
pay past rent and mesne profits being of the view that even if the res-
pondent's case about the tenancy had been proved, such a tenancy would 
have. been invalid because of the relevant statutory provisions then pre~ 
vailing in the area. 
Both the appellant and respondent appealed to this 
Court: 
· 
HELD : If a party asked for a relief on a clear and specific ground, 
and in the issues or at the trial, no other ground was 
covered either 
directly or by necessary implication, it would not be open to the said 
party to attempt to sustain the same claim· on a ground which is entirely 
new. 
But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both the 
parties to the suit are touched. 
though indirectly, 
in the 
issues. 
and 
evidence has been le<l about them, then the argument 
that a particular 
matter was not expressly taken _in the pleadings \Vould ·be purely form.al 
and technical and cannot succeed in every case. 
\Vhat the court has to 
conside·r in dealing \Vith such ari objection is : did the parties kno\v that 
the matter in question was involved 
in the 
trial, 
and did 
they lead 
evide.nce about it? 
If it appears that the parties did not know that the 
matter was in i"Ssue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity 
to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedlv 
would be a different 
mailer [290 F; 291 D-F] 
' 
. In the present case, having regard to all the 
facts, the High Court 
did not err in ~onfirming the decree for ejectment on the ground that the 
appellant was 111 pos"Scssion of the suit premises as a licensee. 
On 
the 
plea~ taken by the appellant in his written statement -in clear and unambi-
guous language. only two issues could arise between the partic_l : is the 
F 
G 
H 
BHAGWATI v. CHANDRAMAUL (Gajendragadkar, C.J.) 
287 
A 
appellant the tenant of the respondent or is he holding the property as 
the licensee subject to the terms specified in the written statement ? In 
effect, the written statement pleaded licence, subject to the condition that 
the licensee was to remain in possession until the amount spent by him 
was returned by the respondent. [292 G-Hl 
Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar, [1953] S.C.R. 789 
and Sheodhar Rai & Ors. v. Suraj Prasad Singh & Ors., A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 
( 
B 
758, referred to. 
"· 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
In regard to the respondent's claim for past rent, no interference was 
called for with the decree passed by the High Court, but its decree in 
relation to future mesne profits could not be sustained, Once it was held 
that the respondent was entitled to eject the 
appellant it followed that 
from the date of the decree granting the relief of ejectment to the res-
pondent the appellant who remained in possession of the property despite 
the decree, must pay mesne profits or damages 
for use and occupation 
of the said property until it was delivered to the respondent. 
A decree 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.