Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 620 (JHR)

Gayatri Kujur v. Halima Khatoon

2010-05-19

N.N.TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT This is the tenant's second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below. 2. The plaintiff filed suit for eviction against the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent, sub-letting and personal necessity. 3. Plaintiff's case was that she had purchased the suit property from Raj Kishore Tirkey by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28th May, 1976. Defendant no.1 is the sister of the vendor. She had requested the plaintiff to let out the suit premises to her. The request was acceded to by the plaintiff. The suit premises was then let out to the Defendant no.1 on monthly rent of Rs.100/-. Subsequently, the Defendant no.1 defaulted in payment of rent from December, 1988. She also inducted Defendant no.2 as sub-tenant in the suit premises and also materially damaged the suit premises. The plaintiff resides in a tenanted premises and as such, she also requires suit premises for her bona fide use and occupation. 4. The defendant contested the suit denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Defendant no.1. She claimed to have acquired title over the suit premises by adverse possession. According to the defendants, the suit premises belonged to Kalumani Dasi- mother of Defendant no.1 and grand mother of Defendant no.2. The land was recorded in the name of State of Bihar but illegal possession of the mother of the Defendant no.1 was shown in the remarks column of record of rights. The husband of Kalumani Dasi predeceased her. Kalumani Dasi died leaving behind four sons and one daughter. Defendant no.1, being the daughter of Kalumani Dasi, has been coming in possession of the suit premises after the death of her mother in 1977 openly and in assertion of independent title and not as a tenant under the plaintiff. 5. Both the parties led evidences in support of their respective claims. 6. Learned Trial Court after thorough discussion and consideration of the facts and evidences on record came to the findings that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Defendant no.1/Respondent no.1 and that the Defendant no.1 defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months. The defendant also materially damaged the suit premises and sub-let a portion thereof to the Defendant no.2 and thereby breached the terms of tenancy. The defendant also materially damaged the suit premises and sub-let a portion thereof to the Defendant no.2 and thereby breached the terms of tenancy. Learned Trial Court also held that the plaintiff requires the suit property for her bona fide use and occupation. 7. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the defendant filed appeal in the court of District Judge, Chaibasa, being Eviction (Title) Appeal No.3 of 1997. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by 1st Additional District Judge, Chaibasa. 8. Learned Lower Appellate Court, after hearing the parties and scrutinizing the evidences and materials on record, concurred with the findings of fact recorded by learned Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Learned Lower Appellate Court also independently scrutinized and examined the evidences on record. He also recorded the finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Defendant no.1 and that the defendants defaulted in making payment of rent and sublet the suit premises to Defendant no.2 and breached the term of tenancy. He also found that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for bona fide use and occupation. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 9. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the findings of the learned courts below are perverse, illegal and unsustainable. Both the courts below have dealt with and decided the complicated question of title in a suit for eviction, which is not permissible in law. Learned courts below have not properly appreciated Ext.-A in which the name of the mother of Defendant no.1 has been recorded, showing her illegal possession in the remarks column of survey record. The land belong to the State of Bihar and the Defendant no.1 has been in possession and residing in the suit premises with her mother, in assertion of independent exclusive possession and title and after the death of her mother in the year 1977, she has been in absolute possession of the land openly and adversely to all concerned. Learned Trial Court and the learned Lower Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the said exclusive possession of Defendant no.1 and have recorded erroneous findings that the Defendant no.1 is tenant under the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court and the learned Lower Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the said exclusive possession of Defendant no.1 and have recorded erroneous findings that the Defendant no.1 is tenant under the plaintiff. The judgments and decrees of the learned courts below are, thus, not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. 10. Mr. M. S. Anwar, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that learned Trial Court as also learned Lower Appellate Court, after through appraisal of the facts and evidences on record, held and found that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Defendant no.1 and that the Defendant no.1 defaulted in making payment of rent and sublet a portion of the suit premises to Defendant no.2 and breached the terms of tenancy. Defendant no.1 has also materially damaged the suit premises. The plaintiff, who acquired the suit premises for residential purpose, has been living in a tenanted premises and as such, she requires the suit premises for own use and occupation bona fidely and in good faith. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the judgments of the learned courts below. Both the courts below have dealt with the case in detail and thoroughly scrutinized the evidences on record. Learned Trial Court discussed the evidence issue-wise and decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Defendant no.1. The Defendant no.1 defaulted in making payment of the rent and that the plaintiff required suit premises for her bona fide use and occupation. Learned Trial Court further held that the Defendant no.1 sublet the suit premises to Defendant no.2 and also materially damaged the condition of the suit premises. Learned Trial Court, thus, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 12. Learned Lower Appellate Court also independently scrutinized the evidences in detail and put its seal of affirmance on each finding of the learned Trial Court. The findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court is based on detailed discussion of the facts and evidences as well as provisions of law. Both the courts below have found that there was no legal basis for the claim of the Defendant no.1. The reasons recorded by them are supported by the evidences and materials on record. 13. The findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court is based on detailed discussion of the facts and evidences as well as provisions of law. Both the courts below have found that there was no legal basis for the claim of the Defendant no.1. The reasons recorded by them are supported by the evidences and materials on record. 13. I find no substance in the grounds taken by the appellants. The aforesaid concurrent findings of facts are based on thorough discussion and consideration of the facts and evidences on record. The findings of facts are binding on this Court. I find no ground in this appeal giving rise to any substantial question of law. 14. This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. Interim order dated 13th July, 2004, consequently, stands vacated.