HARIDEV MISRA versus JAMUNADAS AGARWAL & ORS

Court in Misc. W.P. No. 7886 of 1985. High

p. 757

Prasad and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Appellant. Yogeshwar Satish Chandra and Madan Lokur for the

pp. 757–758

Respondents. The Judgment of the Court delivered

p. 758

by KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave

p. 758

granted. This appeal arises out of suit filed

p. 758

by respondent (plaintiff) landlord in the Court of Small for eviction

p. 758

Judge, Causes, Gorakhpur, of the tenant from the house in the

p. 758

appellants (defendant) question ground of failure to pay the rent and for realisation of arrears'of rent and to It that

p. 758

electricity charges amounting Rs.2,560.60. pleaded the tenant was to rent of Rs.70 from Rs.3

p. 758

pay monthly apart per month water and and in since

p. 758

electricity charges July, 1979 which he failed to The contested the suit

p. 758

pay. appellant mainly the ground that the rate of rent not Rs.70

p. 758

per month but it only Rs.40 and besides that he with furniture the

p. 758

provided by landlord for which he Rs.30 month. His further

p. 758

paying per was that some time after the he

p. 758

tenancy commenced, returned the furniture.

p. 758

The Judge, Small Causes his dated 10th

p. 758

Court, by judgment November, 1983, dismissed the suit that the rate of rent

p. 758

holding Rs.40 per month and such the riot

p. 758

appellant defaulter. The respondent filed revision which allowed the Additional Dis-

p. 758

by trict Judge, The Revisional Court held that

p. 758

Gorakhpur. the rate of rent was Rs.70 month. The filed writ

p. 758

per appellant petition against the revisional order before the Allahabed Court. The

p. 758

High High Court allowed the writ the revisional order and

p. 758

petition, quashed remanded the for the revision

p. 758

deciding petition afresh. Thereafter, the Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside

p. 758

again the judgment of the Trial Court and ordered Vi ‘r

p. 758

ejectment. The appellant again challenged the revisional order of writ

p. 758

by way petition before the Allahabad High Court but the dismissed. Hence

p. 758

this appeal. The Trial Court relied documents

p. 758

primarily upon 39/C and 40/C produced by the defendants. Document 3910 is

p. 758

receipt by the plaintiff wherein details of Rs.73 It is

p. 758

given. clearly mentioned in the receipt that Rs.40 were towards house Rs.30

p. 758

rent, towards furniture charges and Rs.3 water and The

p. 758

electricity charges. plaintiff admitted the contents of 39/C but he that

p. 758

receipt explained Rs.30 towards fumiture charges were mentioned at the of the

p. 758

request defendant. The plaintiff strongly relied upon the rent 97/C wherein

p. 758

note monthly rent of the house mentioned at Rs.70. The Trial Court rejected the rent HARIDEV

pp. 758–759

that the not the, defendant. note the signed by ground

p. 759

the Trial Court diSmissed the

p. 759

its the receipt 391C, Basing findings

p. 759

the other hand, found force in the consuit. The Revisional Court,

p. 759

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

p. 759

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

p. 759

the rent note 97/C and such cannot

p. 759

39/C is contradicted by

p. 759

receipt 5 Court thus differed from be taken into consideration. The Revisional the Trial Court and ordered ejectment.

p. 759

counsel for the Shri Prasad contends Before us, the appellant

p. 759

clear admission of the in the receipt 39/C that in the face of respondent

p. 759

house Rs.40 month. He further contends‘that the rent of the per

p. 759

even if taken into consideration, has been explained by the rent note,

p. 759

to him Rs.70 per month the 39/C and 40/0 According receipts

p. 759

in the receipts to be mentioned in the rent note has been explained

p. 759

for the furniture. We find force in the Rs.40 house rent and Rs.30

p. 759

In the face of clear admission by the contention of the learned counsel.

p. 759

of the Revisional'Court to

p. 759

in the two receipts the finding respondent

p. 759

Rs.70 is erroneous. Faced with the effect that the rent monthly

p. 759

learned counsel for the respondent this situation Shri Satish Chandra,

p. 759

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

p. 759

Rent and Act, 1972 (hereinafter

p. 759

of Letting, Eviction) (Regulation

p. 759

that the for furnished called ‘the Act’) and contends tenancy

p. 759

Rs.30 in of furniture

p. 759

and such failure to pay respect building

p. 759

of the Act and the would attract the of Section 20(2)(a)

p. 759

provisions

p. 759

and Section 20(2)(a) of

p. 759

is liable to be Section 3(i) appellant ejected. the Act under:

p. 759

means residential or “Section 3(i) “building’s, residential roofed structure and includes—

p. 759

and out-

p. 759

land any garden), garages (i) any (including houses, to such building;

p. 759

appurtenant

p. 759

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

p. 759

affixed to such building for

p. 759

and fixtures (iii) any fittings the more beneficial thereof”.

p. 759

enjoyment

p. 759

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

p. 759

has failed to the to not less than four months, and pay

p. 759

month from the date of service the landlord within one

p. 759

him of notice of demand.” upon Shri Satish Chandra

pp. 759–760

contends that definition of Section building under 3(i) includes any furniture

p. 760

supplied by the landlord for in such and building such

p. 760

non—payment of part of the rent meant furniture for would amount to arrears of rent and

p. 760

the failed to the appellant having pay same is liable to be

p. 760

ejected. In other he contends that it was words, furnished house which let-out to the

p. 760

appel~ proposition of law canvassed

p. 760

by Shri Satish Chandra on Sections the basis of 3(i) and of the

p. 760

20(2)(a) Act, but is no the there basis for him in present case to advance the same. It

p. 760

never the of the N.P.V.

p. 760

Appeal allowed.

p. 760