Allahabad High Court
Dr. Dinesh Chandra vs Krishna Kumar Goel on 27 May, 2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Judgment reserved on 09.05.2013) (Judgment delivered on 27.05.2013) Court No. - 28 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 214 of 2013 Petitioner :- Dr. Dinesh Chandra Respondent :- Krishna Kumar Goel Petitioner Counsel :- Nigamendra Shukla,Keshari Nath Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- Nipun Singh Hon'ble 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) SCC 532 holding that if adequate stamp duty was not paid court was empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 33, Stamp Act.
No one can be permitted to approbate and reprobate. It is doctrine of estoppel. When petitioner obtained benefit of the agreement in his writ petition against electricity authorities, he cannot be permitted to say that the agreement is not binding upon him or is not admissible in evidence. No reservation was made in the said writ petition regarding any clause of the tenancy agreement. No one can be permitted to say that he must be given benefit of an agreement to which he is signatory but if there is anything against him in the said agreement, then the same shall not be read against him due to the reason that the agreement is not on sufficiently stamped paper and is not registered even though required to be registered. Permitting such contradictory pleas to be raised will amount to granting premium on dishonesty.
Under Section 29(c) of Stamp Act it is provided that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary the expense of providing proper stamp shall be borne in the case of a lease or agreement to lease by the lessee or intended lessee.
Accordingly, the stamp duty on the lease agreement was payable by the tenant applicant. If he did not pay the stamp duty then he can not drive any benefit of his own fault. The Supreme Court in Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Pres & Anr. Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel & Anr. AIR 2012 SC 3285 has held that no one can take advantage of his own wrong.
Regarding recovery of electricity dues, the claim of the plaintiff was denied.
As the rent was more than Rs.2000/-, hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) was not applicable.
No other point has been argued. Revision is therefore dismissed.
As the suit remained pending for 15 years, hence only four months' time to tenant applicant to vacate the premises is granted on the following conditions.
1. For this period of four months, which has been granted to the tenant-applicant to vacate, he is required to pay Rs.24,000/-( at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall be deposited within two months before the J.S.C.C., Kushingar and shall immediately be paid to the landlord respondent.
2. Within two months from today tenant-applicant shall file an undertaking before the J.S.C.C., Kushingar to the effect that by 27.09.2013 he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord respondent.
3. Within two months from today tenant-applicant shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date before the J.S.C.C. for immediate payment to the landlord (after adjusting any amount already deposited in the court below).
4. If within two months undertaking is not filed or decreetal amount and the amount of Rs.24,000/- is not deposited then from today till actual eviction tenant shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as rent/damages for use and occupation.
5. Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and the aforesaid amount of Rs.24,000/- within two months property in dispute is not vacated within four months then since after four months till actual vacation tenant applicant shall be liable to pay rent/damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month.
It is needless to add that this direction of payment of Rs.10,000/- per month is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition and to get the accommodation in dispute vacated through execution.
Order Date :- 27.05.2013 NLY