Back
2008 Supreme(All) 538
SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
Deo Narayan Jaiswal
Versus
Special Judge (E.C. Act) Court No. 5, Deoria and Ors.
C. M. W. P. No. 10407 of 2002
Decided On : 29-2-2008.
R. S. Misra, Arun Kumar, for Petitioner; P. K. Jain, Amitabh Agarwal, S. C., for Respondents.
The compromise deed between the parties governed the tenancy and the rights of the tenant under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The court also recognized the principle of estoppel in protecting the rights of the tenant.
Headnote:
Rent Dispute - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 - Section 20(4), Section 24(2), Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the interpretation of the compromise deed, the applicability of the Act to the newly constructed shop, and the rights of the tenant under the Act. The court also considered the validity of the compromise, the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, and the principle of estoppel.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent from the tenant. The tenant disputed the suit, claiming protection under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The lower courts dismissed the suit, and the landlord filed a revision. The revisional court upheld the findings of the trial court, and the matter was brought before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the compromise deed between the parties governed the tenancy and the rights of the tenant under the Act. The court also found that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act and that the landlord was estopped from alleging that the agreement was void.
Issues: Interpretation of the compromise deed, applicability of the Act to the newly constructed shop, validity of the compromise, benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, and the principle of estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compromise deed between the parties governed the tenancy and the rights of the tenant under the Act. The court also found that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act and that the landlord was estopped from alleging that the agreement was void.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the findings of the lower courts and upholding the rights of the tenant under the Act.
2. Shri Deo Narayan Jaiswal the landlord of the shop in dispute at Malviya Road, Deoria, filed a Suit No.7 of 1988 for ejectment and arrears of rent from 1-2-1986 to 20-6-1988, with interest of Rs. 10,868.25; water tax of Rs. 1687.32 and house lax of Rs. 137.50 per month for use and occupation upto 21-6-1988, and Rs. 375/- per month as mesne profits w.e.f. 21-6-1988. It was alleged that the shop was newly constructed in 1979, and thus the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, (In short, the Act) are not attracted. The defendant is a tenant @ Rs. 375/- per month. He carries on the business of selling medicines in the shop. The tenant did not pay the rent, inspite of demand since February 1986; made considerable damage to the shop and has sublet the shop to Shri Bindeshwari Mall son of Shri Ram Surat Mall without petitioners permission. The landlord also claimed the possession of the shop for his bonafide need and stated that the notice of demand of arrears of rent and ejectment was sent on 13-5-1988 by registered post through his counsel was served by refusal on 20-5-1988.
3. In the written statement, the defendants alleged that Shri Kaushal Nandan was the owner of the shop and some more properties adjacent to the shop. The plaintiff had purchased the property from Shri Kaushla Nand. At that time late Bhim Raj, father of the defendants, was the tenant. Earlier the plaintiff had filed a Suit No. 83 of 1977, Deo Narayan v. Bhim Raj for ejectment in Judge Small Causes Court in which parties entered into a compromise under which Bihari Lal, Murari Lal, Purshottam Lal, Moti Lal and Vinod Kumar, all sons of Bhim Raj, were accepted as tenant of the shop. The new construction of the shop was to begin on 15-11-1978 and to be completed upto 15-2-1979. The rent at the old rate was to be paid until the constructions were complete. The landlord was not given any right under the compromise to increase the rent in future. The landlord was required to get the house cleaned and repaired annually. The defendants are occupying the shop as old tenants and that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are fully applicable to the shop. The landlord had received the rent upto 17-1-1986 vide receipt No. 41 and started putting pressure on the defendants to increase the rent. He refused to accept the rent after February 1986. The rent for the period 1-2-1986 to 28-2-1987 was sent by money order. The landlord refused to accept it, on which the rent was deposited in his favour under Section 30 of the Act. The defendants denied that they had damaged the shop or have sublet it to any person. Shri Vindeshwari Mall is not the sub-tenant.
4. The Judge Small Causes Court dismissed the suit on 2-4-1998, with the findings that the shop was constructed in the year 1979, and the suit was filed on 21-7-1988. The provisions of the Act were not applicable to the shop. It found that the landlord did not accept the rent upto January 1986 and that the defendant has deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act. After the plaintiff refused to accept the rent by money order, there was no default in payment of rent. Further, the tenant deposited Rs. 17100/- under Section 20 (4) of the Act on 22-2-1989. The defendant did not damage the shop and has not allowed any sub-tenant to occupy it. The shop was not assessed for water tax and thus the water tax is not payable. All the tenants have not been impleaded as parties to the suit and that under clause-4 of the compromise deed, the landlord had agreed not to increase the rent in future.
5. Aggrieved the petitioner-landlord filed SCC Revision No. 7 of 1998. The Special Judge (EC Act), Court No. 5, Deoria, heard and dismissed the revision on 20-9-2001, confirming the findings of the trial
