9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and construction of the house. 2. Relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant (landlord-tenant or licensee). 3. Claim for arrears of rent and future mesne profits. 4. Pleadings and the scope of relief granted by the court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership and Construction of the House: The plaintiff claimed ownership of house No. 59/8, Nachghar, Birhana Road, Kanpur, alleging that he had let it out to the defendant as a tenant. The defendant admitted the plaintiff's ownership of the land but contended that he had constructed the house at his own expense at the plaintiff's request due to the plaintiff's lack of funds. The trial Judge disbelieved the defendant's version regarding the construction and found that the agreement claimed by the defendant was not established. 2. Relationship Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Landlord-Tenant or Licensee): The trial Judge found that the relationship of landlord and tenant was proved based on the defendant's admission of the plaintiff's ownership and the evidence presented. However, the High Court disagreed with both the plaintiff's and the defendant's versions regarding the tenancy and construction terms. The High Court concluded that the defendant must be deemed a licensee, given his admission of the plaintiff's title and the lack of proof of tenancy terms. 3. Claim for Arrears of Rent and Future Mesne Profits: The trial Judge awarded the plaintiff arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5,700 for the period from April 1, 1954, to October 31, 1955, and directed the defendant to pay damages for use and occupation at Rs. 300 per month until ejectment. The High Court set aside the decree for past rent, citing the lack of proof of tenancy and the statutory requirements under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, which invalidated any unpermitted tenancy. Consequently, the High Court rejected the plaintiff's claims for both past rent and future mesne profits. 4. Pleadings and the Scope of Relief Granted by the Court: The defendant argued that the High Court improperly based its decree for ejectment on the ground of license, which was not explicitly pleaded by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while a case should generally be decided based on the pleadings, it is also essential to consider the substance over form. The Court found that both parties were aware of the central issue-whether the defendant was a tenant or a licensee-and had led evidence accordingly. Therefore, the High Court's decision to treat the defendant as a licensee and confirm the decree for ejectment was justified. Separate Judgments: The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the High Court's decree for ejectment. However, it allowed the plaintiff's appeal in part, granting future mesne profits at Rs. 300 per month from the date of the trial court's decree until the delivery of possession to the plaintiff. The Court reasoned that once ejectment was decreed, the defendant must pay for use and occupation of the property until it was handed over to the plaintiff. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to eject the defendant based on the licensee relationship, despite the plaintiff's failure to prove tenancy. The plaintiff's claim for past rent was rejected, but the Court awarded future mesne profits at Rs. 300 per month from the date of the trial court's decree until the property was vacated. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs in the appeals.
|
