Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 61 (JHR)

Dubraj Sao v. State Of Bihar

2002-01-22

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. In May, 1986, the appellant let out the suit premises, which was a godown measuring 50 37, situated on plot No. 582 in village Ghure, within Palamu district to the respondents for the purpose of storing Bidi (Kendu) leaves on monthly rental of Rs. 320/-. 2. On 1.4.1987, there was conflagration of fire in the stock of Bidi leaves stored in the suit premises, whereby the roof, floor, walls and construction of go-down were also damaged. According to the appellant, damage to the godown was occasioned on account of negligence on the part of the respondents. They had not made arrangements of proper measure against fire in the suit premises. The appellant was, therefore, liable to be compensated to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for repairs of the godown and restore the suit premises. 3. According to the appellant, the suit premises was in occupation of the respondents till May, 1987, but rent was paid only upto March, 1987. The plaintiff, therefore, also prayed for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 640/- for two months, namely; April and May, 1987. The appellant also claimed interest @10% per annum on the aforesaid amount. 4. According to the respondents, the godown was let out with full knowledge that fully dried Kendu leaves were to be stored therein, still appellant did not get it insured as a measure of abundant precaution. The suit premises was a Kachha-Khaparail godown and there was no agreement for payment of compensation in case of fire or any other damage to the godown and so respondents were not liable to pay damages, if any, to the appellant. 5. Respondents asserted that rent was already paid till March, 1987, and no rent for the months April and May, 1987, was payable because there was no go- down in their occupation as it had become totally useless. 6. The suit was dismissed holding that it was not proved that due to negligence of the staff of the Forest department, the godown in question was burnt. Further, there was no agreement between the parties that in case of any damage caused to the suit premises by fire, the tenants would be liable to compensate him for the loss sustained. The suit was dismissed holding that it was not proved that due to negligence of the staff of the Forest department, the godown in question was burnt. Further, there was no agreement between the parties that in case of any damage caused to the suit premises by fire, the tenants would be liable to compensate him for the loss sustained. The suit premises was not in occupation of the tenants during the months April and May, 1987, because it had become useless and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to any rent for those two months. 7. An unregistered lease (Exhibit B) was brought on record in support of creation of tenancy between the parties in respect of the suit premises. A perusal of Exhibit B shows that there was no agreement between the parties that in case of any damage caused to the suit premises by fire, tenants shall be liable to compensate the landlord for the loss suffered by him. It was, therefore, established that there was no such agreement between the parties and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to claim damages from the tenants. 8. It is not in dispute that after the suit premises was burnt due to conflagration of fire on 1.4.1987, it became useless and was not utilised by the tenants. Hence, landlord was not entitled to claim arrears of rent thereafter from them for the months of April and May, 1987. 9. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, having no merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Lower Court records may be sent down.