Ajai Agarwal vs Har Govind Prasad Singhal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(SC) 1450

2005(7) Supreme 508
Supreme Court of India
(From Uttaranchal High Court at Nainital)
Ashok Bhan & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Ajai Agarwal and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Har Govind Prasad Singhal and Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3294-3295 of 2005
Decided on 8-11-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Nidhesh Gupta and Mrs. S. Janami, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, M.K. Garg, Manish Shanker and Lokesh Kumar, Advocates.

Headnote:Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 6, 16(10) & 20(4)—Eviction order in respect of shop room on default in payment of agreed enhanced rent—Appeal—Tenancy shop was given on rent of Rs. 600 per year—Respondent landlord asked appellant-tenant to get shop repaired at his costs and get a shutter fixed and increase rent to Rs. 100/- per month—Tenant paid enhanced rent when shop was renovated and shutter was fixed—Eviction suit on ground that tenant failed to pay rent at enhanced rate of Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f. 1-4-1989 and at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. from 1-1-1990 as was agreed—Suit was decreed by trial Court and writ challenging eviction decree was dismissed by High Court—Appeal—Courts below were not right in placing reliance on uncorroborated evidence of landlord alone for conclusion that parties had agreed to periodical enhancement of monthly rent—Appellant tenant having deposited rent arrears at admitted rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. within time prescribed, he was entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act—In view of improvements carried out in suit shop, it was not unreasonable for landlord to enhance monthly rent to Rs. 200/- p.m—Appellant-tenant to pay rent at Rs.200/- p.m.
Held : On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, what strikes us as unreasonable is the reliance placed by the courts below, on the uncorroborated evidence of the landlord alone, in arriving at a conclusion that the parties had, in fact, agreed to periodical enhancement of the monthly rent for the shop room in question. There is no other evidence of the alleged agreement between the parties, much less written agreement. We are unable, therefore, to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the landlord with regard to sub-section (10) of Section 16 which in our view, has been correctly held by the High Court not to be applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is even doubtful whether the effect of Section 6 of the Act can be said to enure to the benefit of the landlords, since the improvements of the tenanted premises had been effected not by the landlord but by the tenant himself. (Para 19)
In the absence of any proper evidence regarding the purported agreement for periodical enhancement of the rents, it becomes difficult to accept the story of such agreed enhancement as made out on behalf of the landlord or its application to the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act. Since there is no such evidence on record, except for the uncorroborated statement of the landlord, we have no other option but to accept the story of the appellants-tenant that the parties had agreed to the increase of the monthly rent upto a maximum of Rs.100/- per month and that too after the renovation had been effected to the shop room and a shutter had been fixed therein. If such be the case, the appellants would also be entitled to the protection of Section 20(4), since the rents admitted to be in arrears at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month had been duly deposited by the tenant within the time prescribed under such provision of the Act. (Para 20)

Judgment

Altamas Kabir, J.—The appellants are the legal heirs of the respondent-tenant and the respondents are the landlord-plaintiffs.

2. One Jagdish Prasad, the father of the appellants in these two appeals was granted a tenancy of a shop room situated at Mohalla Bhoop Singh, Kasba Jaspur, District Nainital by the Respondents-plaintiffs at an agreed rent of Rs. 600/- per year. Since the shop room was in a dilapidated condition, the tenant requested the landlord to get the shop renovated and to fix a shutter in the shop but the landlord did not agree to such a proposal and asked the tenant to get the shop repaired at his own costs and consequently increased the rent to Rs. 1,200/- per year. It is the case of the tenant that at the relevant time the tenant fell ill an could neither repair the shop nor fix the shutter as agreed till the year 1989 but the landlord insisted on payment of the increased rent at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per year since 1986. According to the tenant, the increased rent was to be paid for the improvement in the shop room but since the repair work could not be done till 1989, the landlords agreed to receive rent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month instead of Rs. 100/- per month. However, once the shop was renovated and the shutter was fixed, the tenant paid the rents at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1,200/- per year.

3. On 21.5.1992, the landlord-respondents gave notice stating that the rent had not been paid from the month of October 1988 and demanded rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month from 1.4.1989 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from 1.1.1990. The tenant duly replied to the said notice on 20.6.1992 denying that any such enhancement had been agreed to by him and also indicated that the rents had not been paid as the landlord had himself refused to accept the same. The tenants thereupon tendered the rent of Rs. 4,950/- to the landlord by money order at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, including house tax, since October, 1988. The landlord, however, refused to accept the same. On 24.4.1996, the landlord-respondents filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 14,500/- and for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises. The amount claimed by the landlord-respondents towards arrears of rent was calculated on the basis that that the monthly rents were in arrears at the rate of Rs.200/- per month from February, 1989 and at the rate of Rs.400/- per month from January 1990. The court of Small Causes (Senior Division), Nainital, decreed the suit upon accepting the case made out by the landlord-plaintiffs regarding the purported agreement for enhancement of the rents at the enhanced rate.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court, the tenant filed a revision petition No. 34/1996 which was also dismissed by the court of Special Judge (CBI)/Addl. District Judge, Nainital on 13.8.1999.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and orders, the present appellants who had succeeded to the tenancy as the legal heirs of the tenant filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 36462/99 before the High Court of Allahabad which after the creation of the Uttaranchal High Court stood transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal and renumbered as Writ Petition No. 4053(M/S)/2001.

6. Before the High Court it was sought to be urged on behalf of the appellants-tenant that in the absence of any written agreement the provisions of Section 16 (10) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) did not provide for enhancement of rent by an oral agreement. It was sought to be urged that the case as made out on behalf of the landlord-respondents regarding the alleged agreement to enhance the rents periodically was not borne out by the materials on record and both the trial court and the revisional court had erred in accepting the said story as made out by the landlord in the absence of any written evidence of such agreeme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1450

Cases Referred (4)