Point of law: It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.

JUDGMENT :

"Main questions involved in this petition are:-

(a) Whether a judgment beyond pleading is sustainable?

(b) Whether owner of a building who inducted a person as tenant, is not landlord of the building for reason that the building is constructed over a leased land which is owned by Cantonment Board?

(c) Scope of a rent case?"

1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Sri Shaktidhar Dube holding brief of Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent No.2.

FACTS

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that one Sri A.P.S. Carvalho has obtained lease of Survey No.551/198 from the Cantonment Board, Kanpur measuring 4560 square feet, which was registered on 13.03.1947. He also obtained permission from the Cantonment Board, Kanpur to construct the building over the demised land which was granted by the Cantonment Board, Kanpur, vide letter No.1/6/8156 dated 13.11.1964. However, the aforesaid Sri A.P.S. Carvalho transferred the leased land to the original plaintiff Smt. Lakshmi Devi by a registered deed dated 11.05.1965. The aforesaid transfer was regularised by resolution of the Cantonment Board dated 22.10.1982 with reference to CVR dated 07.07.1971. The original plaintiff/ landlady constructed a house over the leased land. She had inducted one Sri Suresh Chandra Khanna (husband of the defendant-respondent No.2) as tenant in the said house. Thus, the owner and landlady of the disputed house was the original plaintiff Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Sri Suresh Chandra Khanna was the original tenant and after his death, the tenancy was succeeded by his wife Smt. Bina Khanna (defendant-respondent No.2 herein).

3. The original plaintiff-landlady filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for release of the disputed house on the ground of her bona-fide need and also eviction of the tenant on the ground of subletting. The aforesaid case was registered as Case No.40 of 2003 (Smt. Lakshmi Devi vs. Suresh Chandra Khanna). During pendency of the rent case, the original landlady Smt. Lakshmi Devi died. She was succeeded by her husband Ram Chandra Gupta.

4. In the written statement, the tenant admitted the plaintiff-landlady to be the owner and landlady of the disputed house. He also admitted himself to be the tenant of the plaintiff-landlady. The tenant has not taken any objection before the trial court either disputing the landlordship of the landlady or the applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. On merit, the said case was decided and it was decreed by judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar. Aggrieved with this judgment, the tenant filed a Rent Appeal No.81 of 2015 {Suresh Chandra Khanna (deceased) and another vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi (deceased) and others}. It appears that during pendency of the appeal, the husband of the plaintiff-landlady, namely Sri Ram Chandra Gupta also died and he was succeeded by heirs and legal representatives including the petitioner. In the memorandum of appeal, the tenant has not taken any ground either disputing or denying the applicability of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 or the plaintiff to be the landlord of the disputed house.

5. By judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.24, Kanpur Nagar, the appellate court allowed the appeal of the tenant beyond the pleadings, on the ground that U.P. Act XIII of 1972 is not applicable in view of Section 2(1)(a) as the disputed property is owned by the Cantonment Board/ Government of India. Aggrieved with this judgment, the plaintiff-landlord has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS:-

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord submits as under:

(i) The appellate court has committed manifest error of law to travel beyond the pleadings of the case and grounds of appeal and, therefore, the impugned judgment of the appellate court is not susta