Jharkhand High Court
Rameshwar Sao vs Bhuneshwar Ram on 17 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2007(1)JCR348(JHR)], 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 479, (2007) 1 JCR 348 (JHA)
Author: N.N. Tiwari
Bench: N.N. Tiwari
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J.
1. The tenant-defendant is the appellant and has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VI, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1999 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by 1st Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh, in Eviction Suit No. 17 of 1992.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was inducted as the tenant in the premises being Holding No. 24, Ward No. 3 of Hazaribagh municipality, corresponding to Survey Plot No. 488, Chaparbandi Holding No. 141 of Village Nura, PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh on the monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired the suit property by virtue of a lease granted by Khas Mahal authority and constructed the house. According to the plaintiff, the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff up to May 1987 and thereafter defaulted in payment of rent, inspite of repeated request, for more than two months. The plaintiff stated that he required the suit premises for his personal use and occupation as his two sons intend to start business for their own engagement, which is the most suitable place for the said purpose. The defendant was requested on the said ground but he did not vacate. Hence the suit.
3. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. In his written statement he, inter alia, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and contended that the land of Khata No. 488 was acquired by Mostt. Parbatia out of her own money but in the name of her minor son Ranjeet Kumar Ram and taking advantage of simplicity and illiteracy of Parbatia and her minor son Ranjeet Kumar Ram, the plaintiff fraudulently obtained the lease in his own name; it was pleaded that the plaintiff is not the sole landlord and owner of the house, Mostt. Parbatia had inducted the elder brother of the defendant as a tenant in the premises. The defendant himself has constructed two rooms over the same and the plaintiff has no right to evict the defendant. After the death of elder brother, the defendant being sole surviving brother inherited the right of tenancy and he had paid rent from May, 1983 to July, 1983 to Mostt. Parbatia and from August, 1982 to October, 1984 to the plaintiff, and even thereafter. On 2.11.1991 Mostt. Parbatia executed an agreement for sale of the said property in favour of the defendant, on receiving Rs. 5000/- as advance out of total consideration money of Rs. 10000/- and thereafter no monthly rent was payable and thus the suit was not maintainable.
4. The parties led their evidences. The trial Court framed several issues. The trial Court while deciding issues Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 and came to the finding that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and that the plaintiff failed to prove his case. Learned trial Court did not record any finding on default in payment of rent or the personal necessity. On his finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Eviction Title Appeal No. 1 of 1999. Learned lower Appellate Court on appreciation of facts, evidences and materials on record in detail came to the finding that the defendant has himself proved the rent receipts, which go to prove that the rent was paid to the plaintiff. Learned Court below has also come to the finding that Mostt. Parbatia, mother of the plaintiff was admitted as his landlady by the defendant. Learned lower Appellate Court discussed the documentary and oral evidences and held that the defendant failed to establish any payment of rent after June, 1987. It was also noticed that inspite of order of the Court below during pendency of the suit, the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and current rent and consequently defence against the ejectment was struck off. Learned lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff has established his case and the relationship of landlord tenant and that the defendant is a defaulter and the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for eviction and also for arrears of rent, learned Court below allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
5. Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree of learned lower Appellate Court on the ground that the Appellate Court has not considered all the evidences on record, which were considered by learned trial Court and has not met the reasoning of learned trial Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that Mostt. Parbatia herself appeared and supported the case of the defendant. He further submitted that though it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff realized rent from time to time yet since he happens to be only a co-sharer and the tenancy was between the Mostt. Parbatia and the defendant, he received rent on behalf of Mostt. Parbatia. Learned Counsel referred to Ext. C-45 and submitted that it was clearly mentioned that Bhuneshwari Ram had received rent on behalf of Mostt. Parbatia but the said documentary evidence has not been properly considered by learned lower Appellate Court and as such the judgment and decree of learned lower Appellate Court is vitiated.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the judgment and decree of learned Court of appeal below, I find that learned lower Appellate Court has considered the facts, evidences and materials on record in detail and has scrutinized the evidences one by one and has come to the finding that the defendant had been paying rent to the plaintiff, which was evident from several rent receipts, produced by the defendant himself. He also found that there are overwhelming public documents, which go to prove that the suit property was leased out to the plaintiff by the Khas Mahal and that learned trial Court on improper consideration of the documents, had erroneously held that the plaintiff could not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned lower Appellate Court has also found that Mostt. Parbatia is the mother of the plaintiff. The defendant has also admitted that the plaintiff is a co-sharer of the suit premises. The definition of the landlord as provided in Section 2(f) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Controls Act, clearly lays down that a person to whom rent is paid is also a landlord for the purpose of this Act. Admittedly rent was paid on several occasions to the plaintiff, which is admitted by the defendant. The finding of learned Court below is thus well considered and sound. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgments and decrees of the learned lower Appellate Court giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.