IMPORTANT POINT
A court cannot go beyond the pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in Civil Revision Petition No. 381 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant herein.

3. In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.

4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.

5. The appellant (plaintiff) claiming to be the landlord of a shop situated in holding No.257 (old)/58 (new) at Tulapatty Silchar Town (hereinafter referred to as “suit premises”) filed a Civil Title Suit No.189/1977 against one Deo Chand Sarda (Respondent No.1) in the Court of Munsiff No.1 Cachar at Silchar. The suit was filed for claiming arrears of rent and eviction from the suit premises.

6. According to the appellant (plaintiff), respondent No.1 was the appellant’s tenant on a monthly rent. It was averred that respondent No.1 paid some money in advance to the appellant, which the appellant adjusted against the rent ending July 1977. It was averred that the respondent thereafter failed to pay rent from August 1977 despite repeated demands and hence the suit was filed to claim arrears of rent and the eviction of the respondent as defaulter in payment of rent. The suit was filed under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (for Short ‘The Act’). Defendant No.2 got himself impleaded in the suit claiming to be the necessary party. It was permitted. The respondents filed the written statement and denied the material averments of the plaint.

7. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed following issues:

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable in fact and law?
2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
3. Whether there is cause of action for this suit?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit house and if so whether defendant No.1 is a defaulter in payment of rent since August 1977?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?
6. To what relief/reliefs the parties are found entitled to?”

8. Parties adduced their evidence. The Trial Court by judgment/decree dated 23.12.1999 dismissed the suit. So far as issue No.1 is concerned, the Trial Court answered in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the suit is maintainable. So far as issue No.2 is concerned, it was also answered in plaintiff’s favour by holding that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and maintainable. So far as issue No.3 is concerned, it was answered against the plaintiff by holding that there was no cause of action to file a suit. So far as No.4 is concerned, it was divided in two parts. So far as first part is concerned, it was answered in plaintiff's favour wherein it was held that defendant No.1 was the plaintiff's tenant in respect of the suit premises. In other words, it was held that the relationship of the landlord and tenant is established between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in relation to the suit premises. So far as second part of issue No.4 is concerned, it was held against the plaintiff by answering that defendant No.1 is not a defaulter in payment of rent to the plaintiff. By answering these four issues, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

9. The plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed first appeal before the Civil Judge No.1 (Silchar), Cachar being Title Appeal No.14/2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendants did not file any cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) against any of the findings recorded by the Trial Court against the defendants in the appeal.

10. By judgment dated 14.08.2002, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed revision in the Gauha