Jpw‘msk HARIDEV MISRA v. JAMUNADAS AGARWAL & ORS.

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 electricity charges and was in arrears since July, 1979 which he failed to pay. The appellant contested the suit mainly on the ground that the rate of rent was not Rs.70 per month but it was only Rs.40 and besides that he was provided with furniture by the landlord for which he was paying Rs.30 per month. His case further 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 appellant was riot a defaulter. The respondent filed a revision which was allowed by the Additional Dis- trict Judge, Gorakhpur. The Revisional Court held that the rate of rent was Rs.70 per month. The appellant filed a writ petition against the revisional order before the Allahabed High Court. The High Court 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- ment of the Trial Court and ordered ejectment. The appellant again Vi ‘r 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 upon documents 39/C and 40/C produced by the defendants. Document 3910 is a receipt by the plain- tiff wherein details of Rs.73 are given. It is 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 request of the defendant. 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

g

5 JAMUNADAS AGARWAL [SINGH, J.] 759 HARIDEV MISRA v.

note on the ground that the same was not signed by the, defendant. the Trial Court diSmissed the Basing its findings on the receipt 391C, force in the con- suit. The Revisional Court, on the other hand, found the tention of the plaintiff that the rent note 97/C was signed by in defendant. It was held that the admission, if any, of the plaintiff receipt 39/C is contradicted by the rent note 97/C and as such cannot thus differed from be taken into consideration. The Revisional Court the Trial Court and ordered ejectment. b Before us, the counsel for the appellant Shri Prasad contends 39/C that in the face of clear admission of the respondent in the receipt the rent of the house was Rs.40 per month. He further contends‘that the rent note, even if taken into consideration, has been explained by and 40/0 According to him Rs.70 per month the receipts 39/C to be mentioned in the rent note has been explained in the receipts find force in the Rs.40 as house rent and Rs.30 for the furniture. We the contention of the learned counsel. In the face of clear admission by in the two receipts the finding of the Revisional'Court to respondent Faced with the effect that the monthly rent was Rs.70 is erroneous. the respondent this situation Shri Satish Chandra, learned counsel for invited our attention to Section 3(i) of the UP. Urban Buildings of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter (Regulation Letting, for a furnished called ‘the Act’) and contends that the tenancy was building and as such failure to pay even Rs.30 in respect of furniture the Act and the would attract the provisions of Section 20(2)(a) of is liable to be ejected. Section 3(i) and Section 20(2)(a) of appellant the Act are as under:

“Section 3(i) “building’s, means a residential or non—

residential roofed structure and includes—

and out- (i) any land (including any garden), garages houses, appurtenant to such building;

the landlord for use in such (ii) any furniture supplied by building; affixed to such building for (iii) any fittings and fixtures the more beneficial enjoyment thereof”.

“Section “that the tenant is in arrears of rent for 20(2)(a). to pay the same to not less than four months, and has failed the landlord within one month from the date of service

upon him of a notice of demand.”

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

Shri Satish Chandra contends that definition of Section 3(i) includes building under any furniture supplied by the landlord for use such building and as such in non—payment of part of the rent meant for furniture would amount to arrears of rent and the appellant failed to pay the same is liable to be having contends that it was a furnished ejected. In other words, he house which was let-out to the appel~

proposition of law canvassed Sections 3(i) and by Shri Satish Chandra on the basis of the present case 20(2)(a) of the Act, but there is no basis for him in to advance the same. It was never the case of the

N .P.V. Appeal allowed.