Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 822 (GAU)

Saugata Pal v. Abani Sarma

2015-07-05

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned Counsel appearing for the two O.Ps. 2. This Revision petition arise out of judgment dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure-A) in the Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2007, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur held that the petitioners failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship with the Opposite Parties (O.P.) and accordingly the landlords’ claim for fixation of fair rent under Section 9 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”) was found to be not maintainable. With this finding, the earlier decision given on 31.3.2007 (Page-18) in the Misc. (J) Case No. 26 of 2005 by the learned Munsiff at Tezpur, whereby payable rent for the suit land was enhanced to Rs. 1545/- per year, was reversed by the Appellate Court. 3. The petitioners claim themselves to be owner of landed property in Tezpur town and further claim that the said land was let out initially to Padma Kanta Sarma, the predecessor of the two O.Ps. Abani Sarma and Nil Kanta Sarma. Since the rent for the suit land remained unchanged for several decades, the land owners invoked Section 9 of the Tenancy Act and applied for fixation of fair and equitable rent for the land under occupation of the O.Ps. 4. Before the first Court, the O.Ps claimed to be possessing the land for about 6 decades since the days of their father Late Padma Kanta Sarma, who died in the year 1977 and denied the landlord-tenant relationship and the title claim of the petitioners. They also made a counter claim by way of adverse possession. 5. From the plaintiffs side, 3 rent receipts of 29.8.1968, 9.11.1969 and 29.1.1971 (Exbt.3, 4 & 5) were produced where the signature of Subir Kr. Pal and of Padma Kanta Sarma (predecessor of P.W.1 and O.Ps) were appended. Although the signature of the 2 persons in the receipts could not be proved, the Trial Court noted that the concerned rent receipts are 30 years old and accordingly by applying Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, the signatures on the documents produced from lawful custody was accepted to be correct. Although the signature of the 2 persons in the receipts could not be proved, the Trial Court noted that the concerned rent receipts are 30 years old and accordingly by applying Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, the signatures on the documents produced from lawful custody was accepted to be correct. On this basis, the Court held that the father of the O.Ps, Late Padma Kanta Sarma paid rent to the predecessors of the petitioners as tenant and since tenancy right is heritable, the O.Ps were held to be tenants under the petitioners. On this basis, since the rent for the suit land was fixed at Rs. 26.25 in the year 1970, the same was enhanced to Rs. 1545/- per annum, through the order dated 31.3.2007 (Page-18). 6. The aggrieved O.Ps then filed Misc. Appeal No.4/2007, where the Appellate Court considered that the point of determination is whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the O.Ps. The Court accepted that the 3 rent receipts (Exbt.3,4 & 5) are admissible but upon further scrutiny of the Dag number of the land mentioned in the rent receipts, the Court noted that the said Dag No.694 doesn’t tally with the Dag numbers of the land, mentioned in the petition. Accordingly the learned Civil Judge declared that the exhibited rent receipts (Exbt.3, 4 & 5) can’t be connected with the land under the possession of the O.Ps and on the basis of this conclusion, the petitioners’ application under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act was held to be not maintainable. 7. Assailing the legality of the Appellate Court’s verdict, Mr. T.C. Khetri, the learned Senior Counsel submits that when the genuineness of the 3 rent receipts (Exbt.3, 4 & 5) was accepted, in the event of any discrepancy with the Dag number specified in the rent receipts vis-à-vis the Dag number mentioned in the petitioners’ application, the Court could have allowed the petitioners to adduce additional evidence to clear the controversy and to establish that the rent receipts pertain to land occupied by the O.Ps, as tenants under the petitioners. 8. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned Counsel for the O.Ps submits that the petitioners never applied for production of additional evidence and therefore no obligation is cast on the Appellate Court to allow production of clarificatory evidence by the petitioners. 8. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned Counsel for the O.Ps submits that the petitioners never applied for production of additional evidence and therefore no obligation is cast on the Appellate Court to allow production of clarificatory evidence by the petitioners. Since the petitioners failed to establish that the exhibited rent receipts relate to the same land under occupation of the O.Ps, Mr. Deka submits that the claim for fixation of fair rent under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act was rightly refused by the Court. 9. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court is permissible only under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and the Court may allow such additional evidence on application of the affected party. However, such application for additional evidence can be considered only when the evidence will help the Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, for which reasons are to be recorded by the Court for allowing the application. 10. But in the instant case, the petitioners never applied for production of additional evidence and therefore the Appellate Court after noticing the discrepancy in the Dag Number in the rent receipts (Exbt.3, 4 & 5) and in the petitioners’ application, could not have decided the landlord tenancy issue in favour of the petitioners. According to me the view taken by the Appellate Court in the context of the available evidence is a reasonable one which is neither effected by any perversity nor any jurisdictional error. 11. In the above circumstances, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned verdict dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure-A) in the Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2007 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Tezpur and consequently this Revision petition stands dismissed. However since application under Section 9 of the Tenancy Act can be filed at any stage, the dismissal of this case will not foreclose the option of the petitioners to apply in future for fixation of fair rent for the occupied land. With this observation, this case is disposed of. 12. The Registry is directed to return the L.C.R. with a copy of this order to the concerned court.