Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1259 (JHR)

Khursid Alam v. Jahida Khatoon

2015-10-08

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2015
Order : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.02.2015 and decree dated 04.03.2015 passed and signed by learned District Judge-II, Dhanbad in connection with Title Appeal No.100 of 2013 whereby the judgment dated 19.09.2013 and decree dated 24.09.2013 passed and signed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division1, Dhanbad in connection with Title (Eviction) Suit No.38 of 2010 have been upheld. 2. Appellant was the defendant whereas respondent was the plaintiff in the trial court. 3. The facts, in brief, are that defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit premises. It is disclosed in the plaint that the previous landlady Smt. Pushpa Agrawal transferred the suit property by executing registered deed of sale no.1296 dated 01.05.2009 in favour of the plaintiff and the symbolic possession thereof was also transferred. The previous landlady Smt. Pushpa Agrawal informed the defendant about sale and transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and urged the defendant to pay the rent to the purchaser (plaintiff) from the month of September, 2009 at the rate of Rs.300/per month which was then prevailing. It is alleged that the defendant did not pay heed to the request made by previous landlady Smt. Pushpa Agrawal and he stopped making payment of rent. The plaintiff, vide letter dated 19.01.2010 also requested the defendant to pay the arrears of rent with effect from September, 2009 at the rate of Rs.300/per month and also to vacate the suit premises within a month after receipt of the letter in view of the fact that plaintiff require the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for her use and occupation. The defendant with malafide intention has replied to the plaintiff claiming that he had been paying rent to Smt. Pushpa Agrawal, the previous landlady. Since the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises, the plaintiff brought a suit on the ground contained under Section 11(i)(c) and 11(i)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 (for short hereinafter referred to as the “JBC Act”). 4. The defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that transfer made by Smt. Pushpa Agrawal was not duly informed to him and therefore, he had been regularly paying rent to said Smt. Pushpa Agrawal. 4. The defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that transfer made by Smt. Pushpa Agrawal was not duly informed to him and therefore, he had been regularly paying rent to said Smt. Pushpa Agrawal. The plaintiff who never came in possession over the suit premises and no rent at any point of time was ever realised by the plaintiff from the defendant, no relation of landlord and tenant established between the palintiff and defendant and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings issues have been framed. The parties to the suit examined their witnesses and produced documents in support of their respective claim and contention and the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, after considering the material available on record, decreed the suit on both the counts in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant then preferred Title Appeal No.100 of 2013 before the learned District Judge, Dhanbad which stood disposed of from the Court of the District Judge-II, Dhanbad and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court have been affirmed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that both the courts below have erred in not considering the fact that relation of landlord and tenant was not prevailing between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff never came in possession over the suit property, the defendant had regularly been paying rent to Smt. Pushpa Agrawal and he never became defaulter. 7. Be that as it may, there is a concurrent finding of both the courts on both the issues i.e. u/s 11(i)(c) and 11(i)(d) of the JBC Act. It is apparent that the plaintiff, after purchase of the suit property, served a notice that he has now become the landlord and demanded arrears of rent which was due and further instructed the defendant to vacate the suit premises. Not only that, the previous landlady, after transfer of the property also informed the defendant and requested him to pay monthly rent to the plaintiff from the month of September, 2009 at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. The contention made by the plaintiff has concurrently been affirmed and decided by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff. Not only that, the previous landlady, after transfer of the property also informed the defendant and requested him to pay monthly rent to the plaintiff from the month of September, 2009 at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. The contention made by the plaintiff has concurrently been affirmed and decided by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff. In the circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law is required to be formulated for just decision of this appeal and therefore, this appeal appears to be devoid of any merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.