Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.

Heard Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri N. Shukla, learned counsel for tenant applicant and Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel for landlord respondent.

This is tenant's revision directed against judgment and decree dated 29.03.2013 passed by J.S.C.C./A.D.J., Court No.9, Kushinagar in S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 1997, Krishna Kumar Goel Vs. Dinesh Chandra. Through the said decree, eviction of tenant applicant has been directed and he has also been directed to pay arrears of rent w.e.f. 02.07.1997 to 29.03.2013 at the rate of Rs.3300/- per month after adjustment of Rs.1100/- per month already deposited. Same amount has been directed to be paid till actual eviction. 8% interest per annum on the unpaid rent has also been directed to be paid. It has further been directed that if the building in dispute is not vacated within two months from the date of judgment, then since after two months till actual eviction apart from the rent/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.3300/- per month, the tenant applicant will be liable to pay Rs.100/- per day more.

According to the plaint allegation, rate of rent was Rs.3000/- per month and tenant was also liable to pay 10% thereupon, i.e. Rs.300/- per month as house tax as per agreement dated 12.05.1991. The tenant asserted that rate of rent was Rs.1100/- per month.

The main point argued before the court below and repeated before this court was regarding admissibility of the unregistered agreement dated 12.05.1991. In clause-9 of the agreement, it was mentioned that the tenancy would be for two years and after two years either tenant would vacate the tenanted building or new conditions for rent etc. would be determined between the parties, however if the tenant neither vacated nor both the parties agreed for new conditions, then after two years tenant would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.200/- per day.

The tenant filed a writ petition in this High Court being Writ petition No.73618 of 2012 against Electricity Board in connection with electric connection in the tenanted accommodation. In para-5 of the said writ petition, it was mentioned that house was given by the landlord to the petitioner under a rent agreement dated 12.05.1991, photostat copy of which was Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On the basis of the agreement of tenancy, petitioner got an order in the said writ petition for electricity in his favour. However in the suit in question he asserted that agreement was not admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp duty thereupon and its registration. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that admission of the agreement in the earlier writ petition did not amount to admission of the contents of the same. In the aforesaid writ petition against electricity authorities ( in which landlord was not party) no mention was made that any clause of the agreement was not admitted to the tenant applicant. After having obtained benefit of the agreement, tenant petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and say that the agreement is not admissible in evidence.

Learned counsel for landlord respondent has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in Ahmed Saheb Vs. Sayed Ismai, 2012 ( 8) SCC 516 . In the said case, tenant had admitted that he was tenant and he also admitted the rate of rent as asserted by the landlord. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that admission of a party in the proceedings either in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and the same does not need any further corroboration. In the said case, admission was in the written statement. The Supreme Court held that non-registration of the agreement of tenancy did not make any difference. The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier authority reported in Anthony Vs. Kittoop and sons, 2000 ( 6) SCC 394 .

Learned counsel for tenant applicant has placed reliance upon Supreme Court authority reported in Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 ( 2)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document