BISHWA NATH PRASAD VERMA Vs. JAGDISH NARAIN SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist, and Sri U. N. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sachindra Mohan Advocate for the contesting plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged which are on record.

(3.) THE Court below framed a number of issues on the question of rate of rent, whether it is Rs. 2,500/- or Rs. 1,500/- per month and also whether any rent was due or not ? It is submitted that the contract of tenancy between the landlord and tenant was on the intervention of Late Hari Mohan Srivastava, retired District Judge, who was father-in-law of the tenant. Since he is no more alive, the question of rate of rent was to be established by the landlord himself. He examined himself as PW-1 and specifically stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/-, He examined Satya Prakash as PW-2 and Jai Prakash as PW-3 who supported the claim of the landlord. THE Court below while holding that the rate of rent of Rs. 2,500/- came to this conclusion that there are seven rooms on the first floor and one garage on the ground floor in his tenancy, which has not been disputed by the defendant-tenant. THE dispute premises is situated in Darbhanga Colony which is a posh locality of Allahabad. In the year when the tenancy was entered into, the rate of rent for accommodation of seven room and one garage cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination. THE landlord admitted in his statement that though at the relevant time the going rate of rent was Rs. 4,000/- per month but since Late Hari Mohan Srivastava, retired District Judge was involved in the transaction, therefore, the rent was fixed at a lower rate. THE Court below recorded a specific finding to the effect that rate of rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month. This finding has been assailed by Sri B. P. Singh. He has emphatically stated that prior to the revisionist tenant came in occupation of the disputed accommodation, NTPC was the previous tenant who used to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per month plus Rs. 200/- towards water charges, meaning thereby Rs. 2,000/- per month. On this basis it is argued that since it is an admission of the landlord that he had agreed to accept lower rent, the rate of rent was necessarily to be below Rs. 2,000/ -. THE landlord filed counterfoils of the cheques in evidence in support of the rate of rent given by NTPC. It is an admitted position that the garage was not given on rent to the NTPC. It is argued that since it was a public undertaking, it is well known that the rate of rent is higher where such establishment are tenant whereas private persons are charged lower rate of rent. THE landlord has failed to establish the rate of rent as Rs. 2,500/- specially in absence of a written agreement between the revisionist and landlord. THE Court below has committed an illegality in coming to a conclusion that the rate of rent is Rs. 2,500/- and consequently the applicability of the Rent Control Act. Emphasis has been laid on the statement of the landlord given before the Court below wherein he has admitted in paragraph 8 that previously an Engineer Sri M. R. Gupta was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 1,850/-, besides the electricity and water charges. THEre was a written agreement but despite such an admission, the landlord did not bring it on record and, therefore, adverse inference was liable to be drawn. It is also submitted that DW-1 (revisionist) has stated on oath that he did not know Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava Advocate and Jai Prakash Jaiswal who were adduced as witnesses by the landlord. THE settled principle of law is that it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove the rate of rent and statement by the landlord is not sufficient.