Dismissed

Nav Ratan Shrma v. Smt. Lajwanti Devi

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2018CLRE/113/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision filed by a landlord challenging the trial Court's dismissal of a suit for eviction and recovery of rent. The Supreme Court found no material error in the trial Court's findings of fact regarding rent receipts and tax liability, upholding the order.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed and the impugned order dated 02.01.1987 was affirmed.

Nav Ratan Shrma Vs Smt. Lajwanti Devi — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 113 of 1987 Revisionist :- Nav Ratan Shrma Opposite Party :- Smt. Lajwanti Devi Counsel for Revisionist :- B.D. Mandhayan,Ajit Kumar,D.P. Chaturvedi,H.R. Mishra,Madhav Mani Tripathi,Om Prakash,Satish Mandhyan Counsel for Opposite Party :- I.P.Srivastava,Pankaj Agarwal,T.P. Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri O.P. Lohia for the revisionist and Shri Pankaj Agarwal for the opposite party.

¶6

An application to bring on record the heirs of the deceased revisionist no.1/2, Ravindra Nath Sharma is pending.

¶7

Upon hearing counsel for the parties, the substitution application is allowed. Let Smt. Kamlesh Sharma be substituted as revisionist no.1/2/1.

¶8

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the revision.

¶9

This revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act is directed against the order dated 02.01.1987 passed in SCC Suit No.12 of 1984, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff revisionist for arrears of rent and damages @ Rs.117.77 paise has been dismissed holding the landlord plaintiff entitled only to water charges from 01.08.1984 as per law.

¶10

The plaint case was that the respondents were tenants under an old tenancy @ Rs.70 per month. On the enforcement of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, house tax and water tax was promised by the tenants to be paid separately. The plaintiff sent a notice on 13.10.1972 through counsel, which was served on 26.10.1972. By this notice, rent was enhanced to Rs.109.37 paise being the standard rent under the U.P.Act No.13 of 1972. This figure was arrived at on account of the rent being Rs.70/- per month, house tax @ 9% and water tax @ 12%.

¶11

It was further the plaint case that payment of Rs.109.37 paise was made with effect from 15.07.1972.

¶12

The original tenant Kailash Chand died in 1972 and defendants

¶13

nos.1 and 2, his heirs, paid rent till July 1981, but, not thereafter.

¶14

On 01.08.1984, a notice was sent to the tenants through Advocate, which was served upon them on 13.08.1984. By this notice, the tenancy was determined and the tenants were required to vacate the accommodation in question within 30 days. The arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.3827.95 and house & water tax to the extent of Rs.1205.40 paise was also required to be paid but was not paid neither the property vacated and hence, the suit.

¶15

The defence of the tenant was that Kailash Chand and Keshav was brothers and joint tenants @ Rs.70 per month. This amount was inclusive of house and water tax. It was specifically denied that any notice was ever served upon them to pay standard rent @ Rs.109.37 paise nor was such amount ever paid by them. Defendant nos.1,2 and 3 being joint tenants paid rent up to July 1981. Thereafter the landlord refused to accept the rent.

¶16

In the suit, the issues framed were whether the rent included the house and water tax; whether there was sub letting; whether the tenants were in default and whether a valid deposit under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 had been made by the tenants.

¶17

In evidence, the defendants produced the rent receipts, which was admitted by the plaintiff. The admitted rent receipts showed payment of rent @ Rs.70/- per month. This evidence demolished the plaint case of payment of the standard rent after a notice in this regard was alleged to have been served in 1972. This notice dated 13.11.1972( Exb. 9) was not dated 13.10.1972 as alleged by the plaintiff. Besides, no receipt of its dispatch was ever produced by the plaintiff. The notice itself, filed on record, was not a carbon copy.

¶18

The trial Court found that the notice produced was a printed notice with relevant details filed in ink, which according to the trial Court appeared to be new ink and not ink of 1972.

¶19

The trial Court also found that the acknowledgement dated 26.10.1972 could not be connected with the notice. A further finding was returned that the rent receipts showed that in fact rent @ Rs.70/- per month was realized rent till February 1973. Accordingly, the case of enhancement of rent was rejected.

¶20

The trial Court also did not find any sub letting by the tenant on the ground that the defendant no.3 was not a sub tenant but was a joint tenant of the accommodation in question.

¶21

The trial Court also found that the landlord had refused to accept rent in August 1984 on account of composite notice sent by him on 01.08.1984.

¶22

More importantly, the trial Court found that the tenant was not in arrears of rent for three months on the date of notice dated 01.08.1984 and also that a valid deposit had been made by the tenant and therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

¶23

Lastly, the trial Court finding that no written agreement providing that house and water tax were not payable by the tenant, held the defendants liable to pay the taxes, as required under law.

¶24

The trial Court therefore, dismissed the suit for eviction as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages with costs. The plaintiff was however, held entitled to water charges from 01.08.1984 as per law.

¶25

Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds that counsel for the revisionist could not make out any case for interference. Nothing material could be brought to the notice of this Court to show that the findings returned by the trial Court are vitiated in any manner. The findings returned are by the trial Court are findings of fact, which are not found to be perverse.

¶26

Under the circumstances, the order impugned appears to be a perfectly valid and legal order, which is required to be affirmed.

¶27

Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed.

¶28

Order Date :- 02.07.2018 RKM

¶29

Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar Pradesh, ANJANI Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3 ea049885bf64ad5bbb33050e3df e3e210927d94f413, KUMAR SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9 f36f85dbdc71f5b0ec1e2f093843 1e25dbbadc93823915b36c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA MISHRAReason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2018-07-02 15:32:10

Nav Ratan Shrma v. Smt. Lajwanti Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nav Ratan Shrma v. Smt. Lajwanti Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Charan Vs Ahsan and 5 Others

Subodh Kumar Jain Vs Shalini

Surendra Prasad Vs Somara Devi

Jugal Kishor and Another Vs Ram Krishna Gupta

The Managing Director and Others Vs Ram Sanehi Lal

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs Ram Praksh and Others