Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1200 (JHR)

Laxman Das v. Kalabati Devi

2012-08-08

P.P.BHATT

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. Perused the papers. 3. The present petition is filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 against the judgment dated 17th March, 2007, passed by the learned Munsif, 1st, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 68 of 2003, whereby the learned Judge decreed the suit for eviction under Section 11 (1) (c) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Least Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and further directed the defendant to vacate the tenanted premises within 60 days from the date of the decree. 4. Brief facts of the present case are that the Opposite Party (Original Plaintiff) filed a suit for eviction under Section 11 (1) (c) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Least Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, seeking decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises described in Schedule B and also for recovery of Khas possession described in Schedule B by evicting the defendant therefrom by due process of law. The present petitioner, who is the defendant in the said suit, upon receipt of summons, appeared and filed his written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint. The court below on the basis of the pleadings formulated the issues and delivered its judgment by recording its findings against each of the issues and thereby decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff and passed a decree for eviction and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of the decree. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment, the present petitioner (defendant no. 2) has preferred this Revision application mainly on the ground that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that the present petitioner was not the tenant and the learned court below without proper consideration of the documentary as well as oral evidence on record, decided the issue with regard to landlord and tenant relationship in favour of the opposite party. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned court below has also failed to consider that it is a settled principle of law that even unregistered 'Hukumnama' followed by a rent receipt is a valid document and has illegally decided that the petitioner has got no right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned court below has also failed to take into consideration that the suit is barred by the principle of waiver and estoppel. Moreover, the court below has also failed to appreciate that the issue of partial eviction should be taken into consideration and should be decided as mandatory under law. It is further submitted that the learned court below has not properly considered documentary and oral evidence on record and has failed to appreciate the said evidence in its proper perspective. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Mostt. Ugni & Another-Vs.-Chowa Mahton & Others & Tilak Rai and Others reported in 1968 (1) P.L.J.R. 3 and submitted that in view of Section 91 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the unregistered 'Hukumnama' can be used for collateral purpose and this material aspect has not been properly considered by the court below. 6. As against that, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party (original plaintiff) submitted that the court below has delivered the judgment after careful consideration of all the materials and facts and circumstances involved in the matter. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party while referring the judgment, pointed out that the court below after recording the facts of the case and considering the pleadings of the parties, formulated the relevant issues and made a detailed discussion about all the issues and thereby considered the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party by referring paragraphs 5 and 6, pointed out about the various documentary and oral evidence, which has been referred in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party by referring paragraphs 7 and 8 also pointed out with regard to the relevant discussion made in the impugned judgment regarding landlord and tenant relationship, which is established by the plaintiff by cogent and reliable evidence. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party by referring paragraphs 7 and 8 also pointed out with regard to the relevant discussion made in the impugned judgment regarding landlord and tenant relationship, which is established by the plaintiff by cogent and reliable evidence. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party further invited attention of this Court about the ground of personal necessity, which is decided in favour of the plaintiff and the relevant discussion made in this regard in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment. The learned counsel further invited attention of this Court that in similar set of facts, this Court has decided in Civil Revision No. 34 of 2007 in respect of another tenant of the same building. While referring the judgment and order passed in Civil Revision No. 34 of 2007, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the issues which were raised in the present Revision application are almost similar to that of the issues in the Civil Revision No.34 of 2007. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party has referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Mahadeo Prasad Soni-versus-Sushila Prajapati & another reported in 2010 (3) J.C.R. 49. 7. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the court below has allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff (Opposite Party herein) after careful consideration of all the relevant material on record which includes the documentary evidence mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment as well as examination of about six witnesses. It appears that the court below has also taken note of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner herein ( original defendant) as well as the oral evidence i.e. about three witnesses examined by the defendant. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the court below has formulated about six issues for determination of the case and in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment, the court below has discussed the said issues and reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff is eligible and entitled to get the decree of eviction on the ground of personal necessity and default committed by the defendant in making payment of requisite rent. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the court below has rightly and properly considered the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties. The documentary evidence produced by the defendant was not a cogent piece of evidence, as discussed in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment as it was an unregistered document. However so far as claim of title raised by the petitioner is concerned the same can not be raised in suit for eviction. The petitioner is required to file a separate substantive suit to prove his title. The learned court below has also discussed about the ground of personal necessity and default in making payment of requisite rent and thereby observed that the plaintiff is having about total 15 members in the family and despite having his own property, the plaintiff has to reside in a rented premises. This Court is of the view that the reason assigned by the learned court below is in accordance with law and the ground, which has been put forward by the original plaintiff in the suit with regard to personal necessity has been established by cogent and reliable evidence and therefore, the court below has rightly and properly considered this issue and decided in favour of the plaintiff. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the said judgment. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the court below has not committed any error while reaching to the conclusion that the plaintiff is eligible and entitled to get the decree of eviction and thereby the defendant has been asked to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of the decree. The judgment which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mostt. Ugni & Another-Vs.-Chowa Mahton & Others & Tilak Rai and Others reported in 1968 (1) P.L.J.R. 3 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgment which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mostt. Ugni & Another-Vs.-Chowa Mahton & Others & Tilak Rai and Others reported in 1968 (1) P.L.J.R. 3 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On perusal of the judgment in the case of Mahadeo Prasad Soni-versus-Sushila Prajapati & another reported in 2010 (3) J.C.R. 49, which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party, it appears that paragraphs 10 to 16 of the same judgment are relevant for the purpose of deciding this case as the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts and circumstances of the case of Mahadeo Prasad Soni-versus-Sushila Prajapati & another reported in 2010 (3) J.C.R. 49. 8. In view of the above discussion the present Revision Application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Revision application is dismissed with no order as to cost. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.