Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: These two cross appeals arise from a suit filed by Chandramaul (hereinafter called the plaintiff) against Bhagwati Prasad (hereinafter called the defendant) in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Kanpur. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of house No. 59/8, Nachghar, Birhana Road, Kanpur, and that he had let out the said house to the defendant as his tenant. According to the plaint, the plaintiff and the defendant were friends and enjoyed mutual confidence. As the house was being constructed, the defendant wanted some premises for residence, and so, when the ground floor was constructed he was let in as a tenant by the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 150 in 1947. In 1948, the first floor was completed and the defendant took that portion as well as tenant on an additional rent of Rs. 150 p.m. By 1950, another floor had been added and the defendant was given the said floor as well on a further additional rent of Rs. 150 p.m. Thus, the defendant was in possession of the house as a tenant of the plaintiff on the condition that he was to pay Rs. 450 p.m. as rent. The defendant continued to pay this rent and was not in arrears in that behalf as on the 31st March, 1954. Thereafter, he failed to pay the rent, and so, the plaintiff terminated his tenancy and brought the present suit on the 30th November, 1955 claiming ejectment against the defendant and a decree for Rs. 8,550 as arrears of rent from the 1st April 1954 to the end of October, 1955. Future mesne profits were also claimed.

2. The defendant admitted that the land over which the house stood belonged to the plaintiff. He, however, pleaded that the house had been constructed by the defendant at his own cost and that too at the request of the plaintiff, because the plaintiff had no funds to construct the building on his own. Having constructed the house at his own cost, the defendant went into possession of the house on condition that the defendant would continue to occupy the house until the amount spent by him on the construction was repaid to him by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, he had spent Rupees 32,704-1-0 on the construction of the house. Basing himself on this agreement, the defendant resisted the claim made by the plaintiff for ejectment as well as for rent.

3. On these pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed seven issues. He disbelieved the defendant s version in regard to the construction of the house and found that the agreement set up by him in that behalf on the basis that he spent the money on the construction of the house himself, had not been established. He also disbelieved the plaintiff s case about the agreement as to rent on which the plaintiff relied. According to the trial Judge, the defendant had admitted the ownership of the plaintiff, and having regard to the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, he came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been proved. Having made the specific basic finding, the learned trial Judge held that the suit was competent and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree and ejectment as well as for rent.

4. In regard to the amount of rent, however, the learned trial Judge did not accept the plaintiff s version and considered the question on the merits. He held that Rs.300 p.m. would be a reasonable rent for the premises in question. That is how he passed a decree for Rs.5,700 in favour of the plaintiff as arrears of rent from 1st April 1954 upto the 31st October 1955. The decree further directed the defendant to pay damages by way of use and occupation at the rate of Rs.300 p.m. till the date of ejectment.

5. Against this decree the defendant preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court has agreed with the trial Court in disbelieving the defendant s version about the construction of the house and about the terms and conditions on which he had been let into possession. The High Court