HARIDEV MISRA versus JAMUNADAS AGARWAL & ORS

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 17-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARIDEV MISRA
v.
JAMUNADAS AGARWAL & ORS.
FEBRUARY 17,
1989
(K. JAGANNATHA SHE'ITY, A.M. AHMADI AND
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]
U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction)
Act, I972—Secti0ns 3(i) and 20(2) (a)——Eviction of tenant for default—
Landlora' raising a new plea that tenancy was for furnished house—
Whetherpermissible to raise such plea.
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the appellants-
tenant from the house in question on the ground of failure to pay rent
and for realisation of arrears of rent. While the respondent pleaded
that the rate of rent was Rs.70 per month, the appellant contended that
it was only Rs.40 and not Rs.70, and that he was paying Rs.30 per
month for the furniture, provided by the landlord which he returned
sometime after the tenancy commenced.
The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the rate of rent was
Rs.40 per month and, as such, the appellant was not defaulter. In the
revision filed by the respondent, the Revisional Court held that the rent
was Rs.70 per month.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which
quashed the revisional order and remanded the case for deciding the
revision petition afresh.Thereafter, the revisional court again allowed
the revision.
The appellant challenged the revisional order before the High
Court which dismissed the same.
In the appeal, by special leave, it was contended on behalf of the
appellant-tenant that in the face of clear admission of the respondent in
the receipt, the rent of the house was Rs.40 per month, and that the
amount of Rs.70 per month mentioned in the rent note had been ex-
plained in the receipts, to be Rs.40
as house rent and Rs.30 for
furniture.
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the tenancy
756
Jpw‘msk
‘l
m“
”\.A"‘
.-¢‘~"’~
\
1
—"
if
t
HARIDEV MISRA
v. JAMUNADAS AGARWAL
757
was for a furnished building and failure to pay a part of the rent, in
respect of furniture, would attract the provisions of s. 20(2)(a) of
the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972 and the appellant was liable to be ejected. It was also contended
that the tenancy being of a furnished house the tenant could not under
law, unilaterally surrender part of tenancy.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: It was never the case of the respondent at any stage that
furnished house was given on rent to the appellant. In the notice before
filing the suit and in the plaint, it was specifically pleaded that rent of
the house was Rs.70 per month and the tenant was in arrears. In the
written statement, appellant took a clear stand that the rent of the
house was only Rs.40 and Rs.30 was for the furniture, which according
to him, was returned after the commencement of the tenancy. [760C-D]
In the face of clear pleadings on the record, it is impermissible to
raise the plea that the landlord rented a furnished house to the tenant.
It would be contrary to the pleadings. That apart, neither before the
trial court nor before the Revisional Court and not even before the High
Court this plea was raised. [760F]
The trial court relied upon the rent receipts, 39/C and 40/C,
produced by the appellant. It was clearly mentioned in the receipt 39/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.30 towards furniture charges was mentioned at the request of the
tenant. [758G-H]
In the face of the clear admission by, the, respondent in the two
receipts, the finding of the Revisional Court that the monthly rent was
Rs.70 is erroneous. [759D]
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.
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.
[1989]
1 S.C.R.
Satish Chandra and Madan Lokur for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 question on the
ground of failure to pay the rent and for realisation of arrears'of rent
and electricity charges amounting to Rs.2,560.60. It was pleaded that
the tenant was to pay a monthly rent of Rs.70 apart from Rs.3 per
month as water and e

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