Kewal Krishan And Others v. Dina Nath .

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant (landlord) sought eviction of the respondent (tenant) from the premises on the ground of prolonged default in payment of rent commencing from November 16, 1965. This was despite two earlier decrees for recovery of rent having been passed against the respondent. In response, the respondent’s sole defence was to deny the existence of a contract of tenancy, i.e., the relationship of landlord and tenant. The respondent did not deny non-payment of rent from November 16, 1965, nor did the respondent assert that rent had been paid or deposited with any authority.

The trial court accepted the appellant’s claim and ordered eviction. That decision was affirmed in first appeal. In second appeal, however, the High Court reversed the eviction order solely on the ground that no specific issue had been framed requiring proof of default in payment of rent, which was the pleaded ground for eviction. The present appeal challenges the High Court’s reversal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the eviction decree on the ground that no specific issue was framed regarding default in payment of rent, when the plaint averments of non-payment were not specifically denied.
2. Whether the respondent-tenant could, at the appellate stage before the present court, for the first time invoke protection under Section 12(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 by alleging deposit of arrears of rent.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent-Tenant's Arguments

• The respondent is entitled to protection under Section 12(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966.
• The respondent had, in fact, deposited arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 12(i) of the Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court held that the High Court’s interference could not be sustained. The plaint contained a clear averment that the respondent had not paid any rent since November 16, 1965, despite two earlier decrees for recovery of rent against him. There was no specific denial of this averment by the respondent. Further, the respondent did not plead payment of rent to the appellant or deposit of rent before any authority.

Given this posture of the pleadings, the fact of non-payment was deemed admitted on account of non-traverse by the respondent. Consequently, there was no necessity to frame a specific issue to inquire into a fact that stood admitted. The High Court’s reversal on the ground of absence of a specifically framed issue on default, therefore, lacked basis.

As to the respondent’s attempt to invoke Section 12(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 and to claim that arrears had been deposited, the court declined to entertain this plea because it was being raised for the first time at this stage and the fact of any such deposit had not been mentioned at any earlier stage up to the High Court.

The court emphasized that the only defence taken was the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship, which failed in the face of the uncontroverted fact of non-payment since November 16, 1965. On this basis, the eviction had to follow.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeal is allowed. The High Court’s judgment is set aside, and the eviction order passed by the trial court is restored. The respondent shall pay the appellant’s costs assessed at Rs 1000.

Implications: The immediate consequence is the restoration of the eviction decree against the respondent. The court declined to consider a new statutory-protection plea (under Section 12(i)) raised for the first time at this stage, and it confirmed that a specific issue need not be framed on a fact deemed admitted by non-traverse. The opinion sets no broader precedent beyond these case-specific determinations as presented.