Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises situated in MS Plot No.197 corresponding to Old Holding No.522 present Holding No.589, Old Ward No.V, New Ward No.14 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, located at 2 nd Street Church Road, Ranchi, P.S. - Lower Bazar, District - Ranchi. The suit premises consists of two bed rooms with aangan and kitchen, in the building, situated on the aforesaid plot. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.350/- per month. It is alleged that the defendant paid the rent up to the month of June, 2000 thereafter despite repeated request he did not pay the rent and defaulted in payment of rent from July, 2000 hence, he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (here-in-after to be referred to as the BBC Act for short). The plaintiff also pleaded that due to the negligence and willful act of the defendant, the suit premises has deteriorated, and he is liable to be evicted on that count too.

On pleadings of the parties, the court below framed seven issues. The relevant issues were 3 and 4 as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and was liable to be evicted from the suit premises.

The plaintiff and defendant adduced oral and documentary evidence. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court decided all the issues including issue Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction holding that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent in terms of Section 11(1) (d) of the BBC Act.

5. Heard. At the threshold it is pertinent to state that the findings of the courts below on the point of default in payment of rent is a question of fact. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence on record and they have held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff/ respondent and the defendant/ appellant. The defendant in his written statement has admitted that he was in occupation of the said premises as a tenant thereby admitting that plaintiff was the landlord. The appellate court has taken note of the pleading and argument advanced by the defendant that he had sent a notice for adjustment of the excess amount realized by the plaintiff towards rent of July, 2000 onwards and held that the defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The counter foil of rent receipts are Exhibits 3 to 3/D which shows that rent was paid by the defendant till June 2000, however, no rent receipt was produced for the subsequent months and the plaintiff had brought on record the challans of rent deposited from April 2003 and for some months of 2004, 2005 and 2006. The courts below have held that despite the order passed under Section 15 of the BBC Act, the defendant was not prompt in paying the rent and rent of several months are due against the defendant.

The defendant's plea that rent for several months used to be realized at one time by the plaintiff has not been established moreover the courts below have held that if the defendant's plea is presumed to be true that the plaintiffs did not grant the rent receipt then there is no explanation as to why the defendant did not approach or file appropriate application before the competent authority under B.B.C. Act seeking a direction upon the plaintiff/ landlord for issuing of the rent receipt. The appellate court has meticulously analysed the oral and documentary evidence and on thorough discussion of the evidence recorded its finding assigning cogent reasons that the defendant is a defaulter in terms of Section 11 (1) (d) of BBC Act while concurring with the findings of the trial court and affirming the judgment and decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default.