VASUDHA SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. versus SMT. KAMLA CHAUHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 24-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
' 
A 
VASUDHA SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. 
v. 
}. 
SMT.KAMLACHAUHANANDANR. 
JANUARY 24, 1992 
B 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) 
UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Le11i11g. Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972: 
c 
Sections 3(j), 12 and 30: 
Tenant inducted by one of the co-owners-The other residing 
elsewhere-Authority q( such person who inducted the tenant-Whether 
could be questioned in an eviction suit on the ground q( non-joinder q( 
par~inding of fact recorded by trial court-Confirmed by High 
D 
Court-Whether could be reopened in appeal. 
The first appellant and her sister succeeded to the suit premises 
on the death of their father, Respondent No. 2 was the tenant in the 
premises. The first appellant who was managing the property on 
her behalf as also on behalf of her sister, who was residing elsewhere, 
E 
instituted a suit for eviction of Respondent No.2 on the. ground of 
non-payment of rent. She did not join her sister as co-pl.aintiff. The 
defendant-Respondent No.2 took the pica that his wife was the tenant 
and that she had already deposited the rent under Section 30 of the 
U.P, Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972, The trial court rejected the defence and decreed the suit. 
F 
On an app~al by the defendants, the High Court reversed the decree 
and dismissed the suit for non-joinder of the plaintiff's sister. 
The present appeal, by special leave, is against the High Court's 
~
/' 
order. The appellant contended that the expression 'land-lord' in 
G 
Section 3(j) of the Act was not limited to denote the owner of the 
house, but should be understood in a wider sense to include a per-
son to whom rent is payable, as also, the agent of such a person, 
such as the plaintiff-appellant in the instant case. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
H 
HELD: I. Since appellant No. 1 was entrusted '"th the man-
356 
.... ( 
SRIVASTAVA v. CHAUHAN !SHARMA,).] 
357 
agement of the house as her sister was staying with her husband 
A 
elsewhere and it was appellant No. I who had inducted the respond-
ent No. 2 in the premises as a tenant, it was not open to the tenant-
respondent to question her authority. If he was desirous of contest-
ing the factual aspect, ii was essential for. him to have raised the 
issue of non-maintainability in his written statement which was not 
done. In reversing the decree passed by the trial court the High 
B 
Court committed a serious error in not appreciating this position. 
[358 F-H] 
2. 
Much significance cannot he attached to the aspect as to 
whether the husband became defaulter or not when the wife had 
already offered to pay the rent, in view of the importance of the C 
issue in the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Build-
ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Jn that 
background the parties went to trial and led their full evidence on 
the point and the trial court dealt with the dispute thoroughly and 
recorded a finding in favour of the appellants which has been con-
firmed by the High Court. The respondent, therefore, cannot be 
D 
aliowed to reopen this question. [359C-D] 
-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 243 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.1989 of the Allahabad 
E 
High Court in Civil Revision No. 480of1983. 
Sunil Gupta, Vikram Nath and H.K. Puri for the Appellants. 
Manoj Swarup and Ms. Lalita Kohli for ihe Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. Special le.ave is granted. 
2. 
The appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of the respondents 
from a building in the city of Allahabad. The premises belonged to one 
G 
G.D. Srivastava, who on his death was succeeded by his two daughters 
Smt. Shashi Srivastava, the sole original plaintiff since dead (substituted, 
by her legal representatives) and the appellant No. 6 Smt. Sarojini. 
According to the case of the appellants the property remained under the 
J..... 
management of Shashi Srivastava on her own behalf as well as her sister 
Sarojini ·Sinha, who was not residing in Allahabad. The house was let out 
H 
/ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ J 992] 1 S.C.R. 
to the respondent No. 2 Harpal Singh Chauhan, a Government servant, in 
1968. Jn 1978 Harpal Singh Chauhan was transferred outside Allahabad, 
and certain strangers initiated a proceeding under section 12 (3A) of the 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972 (herein

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