Holding

A landlord cannot introduce a new plea of furnished tenancy contrary to the pleadings, and the rent was Rs 40 for the house with a separate Rs 30 furniture charge, so the tenant was not in arrears for house rent.

Summary

The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant alleging non-payment of rent of Rs 70 per month, which included a Rs 30 charge for furniture supplied by the landlord. The tenant contended that the house rent was only Rs 40 per month and that the Rs 30 was a separate furniture charge, which he returned after the tenancy began. The trial court accepted the tenant's claim and dismissed the suit, but the revisional court reversed the decision, holding the rent to be Rs 70 and ordering eviction. The High Court quashed the revisional order, remanded the case, and later dismissed the tenant's subsequent petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the landlord could introduce a new plea that the tenancy was for a furnished house, contrary to the pleadings, and interpreted Sections 3(i) and 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It held that the landlord could not raise the furnished‑house plea as it was not pleaded and that the rent was Rs 40 for the house with a separate Rs 30 furniture charge, so the tenant was not in arrears for house rent. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the revisional order and rejecting the eviction.

Issues considered

Whether a landlord may raise a new plea that the tenancy was for a furnished house when such a plea was not pleaded earlier.
Whether Sections 3(i) and 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 apply to the dispute over furniture charges.
Whether the tenant is liable for eviction on the ground of non‑payment of the furniture portion of rent.

Legislation cited

U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 20(2)(a), s. 3(i)

Subjects

evictionrent disputefurnished tenancypleadingsU.P. Urban Building ActSection 3(i)Section 20(2)(a)landlord-tenantarrears of rent

Judgment

Jpw‘msk
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—
Whether permissible 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.

‘l
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
was Rs.70
per month.
that the rent m“
The appellant filed a writ petition before the
quashed the revisional order and remanded the case for
High Court, which
revision petition afresh.Thereafter, the revisional court
the revision.
deciding the
again allowed
”\.A"‘
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 1

appellant-tenant that in the face of clear admission of the
the receipt, the rent of the house was Rs.40
respondent in \

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
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,
if
HELD: It was never the case of the respondent at any stage that

—"
t
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 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
J.] 759
HARIDEV MISRA v. JAMUNADAS AGARWAL [SINGH,

was not signed by the, defendant.
note on the ground that the same
the receipt 391C, the Trial Court diSmissed the
Basing its findings on
on the other hand, found force in the con-
suit. The Revisional Court,
the
tention of the plaintiff that the rent note 97/C was signed by
of the plaintiff in
defendant. It was held that the admission, if any,
note 97/C and as such cannot
receipt 39/C is contradicted by the rent
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
the Revisional'Court to
respondent in the two receipts the finding of Faced with
the effect that the monthly rent was Rs.70 is erroneous.
this situation Shri Satish Chandra, learned counsel for
the respondent
attention to Section 3(i) of the UP. Urban Buildings
invited our
1972 (hereinafter
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 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
and Section 20(2)(a) of
appellant is liable to be ejected. Section 3(i)
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;

for use in such
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord
building;
such building for
(iii) any ﬁttings and fixtures affixed
to

the more beneficial enjoyment thereof”.

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

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 the landlord for
by use in
such building and as such
non—payment of part of the rent meant for
furniture would amount to arrears
of rent and the
failed to
pay the same is liable to be
appellant 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
20(2)(a) of the Act, but
there is no basis for him in
present case to advance the
same. It was never the case of
the

N .P.V.
Appeal allowed.