Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1166 (JHR)

Muzaffar Alim v. Usman Khan

2008-09-29

JAYA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Java Roy, J. 1. Heard the senior counsel Mr. P.K. Prasad, appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. The main grievance of the appellants is that the learned courts below have erred in going into the question of title and inferring the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. After going through the judgments of the trial court as well as the learned appellate court and noticing the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the findings of the learned court below is correct. 3. The Trial court has taken notice of the fact at page 17 of the judgment that the plaintiff has produced rent receipts in the name of Tara Khatoon and Md. Usman of the year 1999 and in the name of Md. Sarfuddin, Dargahi, Safiq and Usman of the year 1992 and these documents are exhibited as Ext.- 2 Series. These documents create the right, title and constructive possession over suit land. He further produced decision of Anjuman regarding controversy between the parties dated 15.09.1994. exhibited as Ext.- 4. which shows that the defendants are tenants in the suit premises inducted in 1975 and they never acquired any title over the suit land. 4. The trial court at page 21 of its judgment while deciding the issue No. 3 i.e. does the exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, by elaborating consideration of oral and documentary evidence has come to a finding that; I am of the view that the plaintiff has become able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 5. So far as the question of defaulter is concerned, which is Issue No. 4 before the Trial Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on records, the learned trial court at page 22 of its judgment has come to a finding that: The defendants also admitted that they are not pay the rent because they are claim title. Although, their claims has been frustrated. So in my opinion, the defendants are defaulter in payment of the rent and liable to be evicted from suit premises. 6. Although, their claims has been frustrated. So in my opinion, the defendants are defaulter in payment of the rent and liable to be evicted from suit premises. 6. Similarly, the appellate court after considering all the evidences on record and analyzing the evidence of parties and after applying his independent judicial mind, has come to a conclusion at page 20 of its judgment that; I come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/respondents have become able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties of this suit. 7. So far as the finding of the default of payment of rent is concerned, the appellate court at para 21 of the judgment after considering all the facts and circumstances of this case and evidence on record, has come to a definite findings that; In such circumstances also the defendants are defaulter in paying the rent. 8. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the decision, reported in AIR2002SC136 relied upon by the learned senior council of the appellant, has no application in this Second Appeal 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued about the Order-7, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure but neither copy of the plaint has been filed with the memo of appeal nor the copy of the plaint has been placed before me during the course of his argument. 10. So far as contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants about induction of the defendant and payment of the rent by the defendant are concerned, it is fulfilled by the findings of the fact at page 20 last three lines onwards in the trial court judgment. The learned Munsif has come to a finding that; I am of the view that the plaintiff got the status of landlord when he steps in the shows their vendors and defendants never It got any title over suit land, they were Inducted as tenant in the suit premises and till now they are tenant of the suit premises, they never became the owner of landlord of the suit premises and when the plaintiff became the owner and landlord of the suit premises. The tenants automatically became the tenant of the plaintiff. Further finding of the trial court at page 22 is that; Defendants also admitted that they are not pay the rent because they are claim title. Although, their claims has been frustrated. The tenants automatically became the tenant of the plaintiff. Further finding of the trial court at page 22 is that; Defendants also admitted that they are not pay the rent because they are claim title. Although, their claims has been frustrated. So in my opinion the defendants are defaulter in payment of the rent and liable to be evicted from suit premises. 11. According to my view, the facts stated herein before, it is absolutely not necessary to give the finding about the actual payment of the rent by the tenant/defendant/appellant to the plaintiffs/respondents. 12. Further more, the plaintiff has filed the suit on one of the grounds that his sons are unemployed and sitting idle and he requires the suit premises to settle his sons and thus he requires the suit premises for their bona fide use and occupation. 13. The trial court has decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff, which is also confirmed by the appellate court and has given its finding that the plaintiffs ate in need of the suit premises till date The suit was filed in the year 1995 i.e. more than a decade ago. 14. Considering the case reported in 2005(10) SCC 553 [Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (Oead) Lrs.], I have no hesitation to dismiss the instant Second Appeal, as the appellants could not make any ground giving rise to any substantial question of law. 15. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.