Case Note & Summary
This civil dispute arose from a suit by Chandramaul (plaintiff) against Bhagwati Prasad (defendant) in the Court of the Second Civil Judge, Kanpur, concerning house No. 59/8, Nachghar, Birhana Road, Kanpur. The plaintiff alleged that he owned the house and had let it to the defendant as a tenant in stages from 1947 to 1950, at a total monthly rent of Rs. 450. The defendant admitted that the land belonged to the plaintiff but pleaded that he had constructed the house at his own cost of Rs. 32,704-1-0 at the plaintiff's request, on condition that he could occupy it until the amount spent was repaid. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy and filed the suit on 30 November 1955 seeking ejectment, arrears of rent of Rs. 8,550 from 1 April 1954 to 31 October 1955, and future mesne profits. The trial court framed seven issues, disbelieved the defendant's construction claim and the plaintiff's agreement as to rent, but found that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been proved. It decreed ejectment and awarded reduced rent at Rs. 300 per month, resulting in arrears of Rs. 5,700, and directed damages for use and occupation at Rs. 300 per month until ejectment. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court agreed with the trial court in disbelieving the defendant's version but was not satisfied with the plaintiff's case of tenancy. It held that the defendant must be deemed a licensee, confirmed the ejectment decree, and set aside the decree for past rent and future mesne profits on the ground that any tenancy would have been invalid under the U.P. Ordinance of December 1946, later enacted as the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (No. III) of 1947, which required permission of the District Magistrate for letting. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate; the defendant challenged the ejectment decree, and the plaintiff challenged the rejection of past rent and future mesne profits. The defendant argued that the High Court had made a new case for the plaintiff by treating him as a licensee when the pleaded case of tenancy had failed, relying on Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar and Sheodhar Rai & Ors. v. Suraj Prasad Singh & Ors. The Supreme Court, speaking through Gajendragadkar C.J., held that while a party cannot sustain a claim on an entirely new ground not covered by pleadings or issues, the objection is technical and cannot succeed where substantial matters of title were touched in issues and evidence was led. In this case, the written statement clearly pleaded licence subject to repayment, so the nature of possession was in issue, and the High Court could treat the defendant as licensee. The Court therefore dismissed the defendant's appeal and confirmed the ejectment decree. On the plaintiff's appeal, the Court upheld the High Court's rejection of past rent because the tenancy was not proved and would have been invalid under the U.P. Act. However, it held that once ejectment was decreed, the defendant remaining in possession had to pay future mesne profits or damages for use and occupation until delivery. The Supreme Court thus partly allowed the plaintiff's appeal and directed that the ejectment decree be accompanied by an order for payment of future mesne profits or damages. The final outcome favored the plaintiff on ejectment and future mesne profits, while the defendant succeeded on the past rent claim.
Headnote
A) Practice and Procedure - Pleadings - New Grounds - Not mentioned - A party who asks for relief on a clear and specific ground cannot later sustain the same claim on an entirely new ground if such ground was not covered directly or by necessary implication in the issues or at trial. The Supreme Court relied on Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar and Sheodhar Rai & Ors. v. Suraj Prasad Singh & Ors. to hold that a new inconsistent case cannot be permitted. Held that this principle applies where the new ground was not in issue and parties had no opportunity to lead evidence. (Paras 290F-291F) B) Practice and Procedure - Pleadings - Technical Objection When Matter Substantially in Issue - Not mentioned - Where substantial matters relating to title are touched in issues and evidence has been led, an objection that a particular matter was not expressly taken in pleadings is formal and technical and cannot succeed. The court must consider whether parties knew the matter was involved in the trial and led evidence about it. In the present case, the written statement clearly pleaded licence subject to repayment of construction cost, putting nature of possession in issue, so the High Court could treat the defendant as licensee. Held that the ejectment decree was properly confirmed. (Paras 291D-F, 292G-H) C) Mesne Profits - Licensee Ejectment - Future Mesne Profits - U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act No. III of 1947) - Once a decree for ejectment of a licensee is passed, the person remaining in possession despite the decree must pay mesne profits or damages for use and occupation until delivery of possession. The High Court had set aside past rent and future mesne profits on the ground that the alleged tenancy was invalid without permission of the District Magistrate under the U.P. Act. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of past rent but held that future mesne profits must be awarded as a necessary accompaniment to an ejectment decree. Held that a decree for ejectment must be accompanied by direction for payment of future mesne profits or damages. (Paras 294F-H)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could confirm ejectment on the ground of licence when the plaintiff pleaded tenancy and that tenancy was not proved; whether the plaintiff was entitled to past rent and future mesne profits when the alleged tenancy was invalid under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal against ejectment, confirming the High Court's decree treating the defendant as a licensee. It upheld the High Court's rejection of past rent. It allowed the plaintiff's appeal in part by directing that future mesne profits or damages for use and occupation be paid from the date of the ejectment decree until delivery of possession.
Law Points
- A party cannot sustain a claim on an entirely new ground not covered by pleadings or issues
- Where substantial matters of title are touched in issues and evidence led
- technical objection to pleadings cannot succeed
- Once ejectment decree is passed
- person remaining in possession must pay future mesne profits or damages until delivery
- U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act
- 1947 invalidates letting without permission of District Magistrate
- Past rent may be denied if tenancy not established under such Act
