December 12, 2017
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan dealt with an appeal filed by the landlord against the Judgment passed by High Court of Uttarakhand by allowing the Revision Petition and set aside the order passed by the Judge, small causes court directing the eviction of the tenant with recovery of rent and damages.
The landlord (appellant) is the owner of Shop No. 46 Adarsh Gram Chauhan Market, Yatra Bus Station, Rishikesh. The respondent is carrying on business of clothe merchant in the shop as tenant. A notice dated 07.09.2001 was issued that respondent has not paid the rent of above-mentioned shop from December, 2000 till present date. The rate of rent was claimed as Rs. 1500/- per month. Notice was given to pay the whole outstanding rent with interest within one month from the receipt of the notice, failing which tenancy shall be treated as terminated. After prescribed period damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day were also claimed. As notice was not replied, the appellant filed a Small Causes Case No. 32 of 2001 in the Court of Additional District Judge praying for recovery of rent with compensation and expenses and any other relief. The written statement was filed by the respondent where he denied the rate of rent to be Rs. 1500/- per month. It was stated that the rate of rent is only Rs. 250/- per month and since October 1994, he is carrying on business of clothe. It was stated that the plaintiff has already received the rent for the month of August, 2001 but he did not issue any receipt. Appellant has stopped to receive the collection of rent from September, 2001. The respondent forwarded the total rent of Rs. 1250/- for the period of September, 2001 to January, 2002 at the rate of Rs.250/- per month through money order which was denied, stating that 'it is denied to accept due to this amount is less than the actual amount'.
Respondent pleaded that premises is covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Trial
Court by order dated 13.05.2004 framed ten issues. An application for amendment
was filed by appellant for adding a prayer 'that the plaintiff may be given
possession of disputed shop which is stated in the list of property annexed at
the end of the plaint after evicting the respondent from the above shop'. The
amendment application was although rejected by the Trial Court on 25.4.2007, but
the High Court by an order dated 05.08.2008 allowed the amendment application
subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/-.
Trial Court after considering the evidences of the parties decided issue No. 1
in favour of the appellant that rate of rent is Rs.1500/- per month. Other
issues were also decided in favour of the appellant, consequently, the Trial
Court passed a decree of eviction against the respondent-tenant with balance
amount of payment of rent and damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day.
Aggrieved by the above-said judgment, the respondent filed a Revision before the
High Court. The Revision filed by the respondent was under Section 25 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1887').
The High Court vide its judgment allowed the Revision and set aside the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court holding that rate of rent is Rs. 250/- per month
and not Rs. 1500/- per month. High Court also made observation against the
landlord that the motive of landlord is to secure the possession back and profit
hunting.
The court said that "The findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on
evidence brought on record. A reference to Evaluation List for the period
2004-2009 by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Rishikesh vide document No.
96Ga was also mentioned. Trial Court has further drawn an adverse inference
against respondent that he had not produced the diary in which acknowledgment of
the entry of the payment of rent was made by the appellant. The entire
discussion of the High Court as extracted above, does not refer to above two
factors which weighed that the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that rate
of rent is Rs. 1500/- per month. We thus are of the clear opinion that High
Court committed an error in setting aside the findings of the Trial Court on the
rate of rent."
"Present is not a case where High Court set aside the finding of the Trial
Court on any of above grounds where Revisional Court under Section 25 can
interfere. High Court has not even referred to the reasons given by the Trial
Court while coming to the conclusion that the rate of rent is Rs. 1500/ per
month. We thus are of the view that judgment of the High Court is
unsustainable."
"The landlord was clearly insisting on termination of the tenancy and was
also mentioning a cause of action of not handing over of the possession. In
these circumstances, we are of the view that it cannot be held that there was
any waiver of relief of eviction either on the notice or in the suit. Formal
prayer has already been added in the plaint seeking possession of shop after
eviction which amendment was allowed by the High Court in its judgment dated
05.08.2008. We are thus of the view that High Court committed an error in
setting aside the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court."
With these observations the court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and
order of the High Court and restored the decree of the Judge, small causes
court.
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court dated 11.12.2017
Appeal against dismissal of application for amendment of plaint - Supreme Court decision
December 12, 2017
December 12, 2017
Supreme Court Judgment for eviction of Tenant and recovery of rent and damages
December 12, 2017
What a Mess! This is perhaps the only way to describe the events that have transpired in the examination conducted by the U.P. SESSB - Supreme Court December 11, 2017