LAKSHMI CHAND Vs. PT NIADER MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal against a decree of ejectment passed by the learned District Judge of Bulandshahr against the appellant. A sum of Rs. 1328 was also awarded against them as compensation for use and occupation, The facts are these: The respondent Niader Mal is admittedly the owner of tile accommodation in dispute. It is common ground that in 1951 the appellant Lakshmi Chand was in need of accommodation and was admitted into the house by Niader Mal on the recommendation of a common friend Shiam Lal Mittal Vakil. There are conflicting versions about the nature of the transaction made by the parties which resulted in Lakshmi Chand occupying the house, the landlord alleging that Lakshmi Chand was allowed the use of it as a licensee and the latter asserting that he entered possession under a regular agreement of tenancy. It is again common ground that in November 1953 the defendant Lakshmi Chand executed a registered deed of agreement by which he promised to pay the owner, a sum of Rs. 25 per mensem with effect from the date of occupation and also agreed to vacate the accommodation by 12th September 1954. He, however, failed to do so and Niader Mal brought his suit for ejectment and recovery of a certain sum as compensation for use and occupation.

(2.) Lakshmi Chand contested the suit and denied that he was occupying the house as a licensee. He claimed to be a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15. He contended that the original transaction created a tenancy. He repudiated the subsequent registered agreement of November 1953 as vitiated by duress and undue influence. The trial court held that Lakshmi Chand was either a tenant or a lessee and not a licensee, and that the agreed rent was Rs. 15 per mensem. He dismissed the suit for ejectment but passed the decree for Rs. 343-10-0 for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per mensem, holding that a subsequent oral agreement had enhanced the rate of Rs. 15 to Rs. 20. Both the parties assailed the decision of the trial court, the landlord by means of an appeal and the tenant by a cross-objection against the decree for rent. One of the questions agitated before the trial court concerned the status of the appellant Lakshmi Chand that is to say, whether he had been occupying the house as a lessee or a licensee. The learned District Judge, after a review of the oral evidence (there is no written agreement of the original transaction) held that the original arrangement between the parties did not amount to an agreement of lease and did not confer on Lakshmi Chand the status of a tenant. He was of the view that) Lakshmi Chand's occupation of the house was permissive. As regards the registered agreement of 1953, the learned Judge held that it was executed under undue influence and that its terms were unenforceable but, according to him, this agreement could not have the effect of changing the status of Lakshmi Chand from that of a licensee to a lessee. Accordingly, the learned District Judge decreed the suit for possession and also allowed a sum of Rs. 83-10-0 as compensation for use and occupation. Thus both the appeal and cross-objection were allowed in part. The plaintiff appears to have submitted to those decisions but the defendant Lakshmi Chand has come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) In my view this appeal must fail on a simple ground. The plaintiff Niader Mal alleged in his suit that he had allowed Lakshmi Chand to occupy the house as a licensee. In defence the latter set up an agreement of tenancy. This plea could not be entertained by the court, for it was based on a transaction which was made in violation of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act.