Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 672 (JHR)

Vijay Sahu v. Sukhram Prasad

2001-09-17

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT Gurusnaran Sharma, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant. By registered sale deed dated 12.7.1989 (Exhibit 2), plaintiff purchased two and half Kaths land from Sardar Devendra Singh and Sardar Charanjit Singh, bearing Plot No. 5, Mohalla-Madhukam of Ranchi town Holding No. 1/H, within ward No. 11/A of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 2. Defendant was already in occupation of one room (10 x 20) thereof as a tenant from before. 3. Plaintiffs vendor, Sardar Devendra Singh, informed the tenant about the aforesaid transfer and directed him to pay rent from July, 1989 onwards to the plaintiff. 4. According to the plaintiff, no rent was paid by the defendant from July, 1989, onwards to him and as such on 28.11.1989 he sent notice (Exhibit 1) to the defendant to vacate the suit premises. 5. Plaintiff filed Eviction (Title) Suit No. 58 of 1998 for defendants eviction from the suit premises detailed in Schedule, given at the foot of the plaint. 6. Defendant contested the suit on the ground that after the sale, plaintiffs vendor never asked him to pay rent to the purchaser and for the first time he received notice dated 28.11.1989 (Exhibit B) sent by the lawyer, at the instance of plaintiffs vendor about transfer in question. As a matter of fact, he was ignorant of the transfer in question and always paid rent to Sardar Charanjit Singh and after he refused to receive the rent hand to hand, he started remitting the same by postal money orders from 1st week of December. 1989 onwards. 7. Sardar Devendra Singh was examined in the suit as PW 5. He proved registered sale deed dated 12.7.1989, whereby the suit premises was transferred to the plaintiff, which was marked as Exhibit 2. In paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief, the said witness stated that he was getting Rs. 500/- per month as rent from the defendant and after the aforesaid sale in July, .1989, he had informed defendant Vijay Sahu about the same. By that time, he had paid rent to us upto June, 1989. 8. In the notice (Exhibit 1), plaintiff had also claimed rent @ Rs. 500/- per month from the defendant. Defendant misbrably failed to produce any document showing payment of rent either to Sardar Devendra Singh and Sardar Charanjit Singh or to the plaintiff. He produced Money order coupons of remittance of rent from November, 1989 onwards @ Rs. 8. In the notice (Exhibit 1), plaintiff had also claimed rent @ Rs. 500/- per month from the defendant. Defendant misbrably failed to produce any document showing payment of rent either to Sardar Devendra Singh and Sardar Charanjit Singh or to the plaintiff. He produced Money order coupons of remittance of rent from November, 1989 onwards @ Rs. 250/- per month. On those coupons, which were marked Exhibits A series, it was not shown as to whom the rent was being remitted, the plaintiff or his vendors. 9. It is relevant to state that not even a single Money Order receipt was brought on record by the defendant. Besides this, the Court of appeal below on scrutiny of each such money order coupons (Exhibits A series) came to the conclusion that the coupons for seven months were not brought on record. As such finding of fact was recorded that the defendant failed to prove even remittance of rent by postal money order to the plaintiff for the months of April, July, and September, 1990, as well as April, August, September and December, 1991. 10. In the present Second Appeal, defendant-appellant has not challenged the aforesaid finding on the ground that it was an error of record and in fact they had produced money order coupons of remittence of rent for the aforesaid seven months too. 11. It is well settled that a tenant can be held to be defaulter in payment of rent within the meaning of Section 11(1)(d) of the Act for two months before filing the suit. It is not necessary that default must be in payment of rent for two consecutive months. 12. In my opinion, this Second Appeal is concluded by finding of facts, recorded by final Court of fact, i.e. the first appellate Court. 13. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed, but without costs- Let the lower Court records be sent down immediately. 14. Appeal dismissed.