JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) 1. Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha assisted by learned counsels for the appellant, Mr. Pratiush Lala and Mr. Sandeep Verma. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.06.2007 and decree signed on 27.06.2007 passed by Additional District Judge-13th, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 47 / 2005, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant / plaintiff has been allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 11.02.2005 and decree signed on 25.02.2005 passed by Subordinate Judge-Ist, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 08 / 2000. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C., as the appellant / respondent / defendant has not filed any written statement, on the basis of evidence brought on record. Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. reads as under: 10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.-Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit, and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment passed by the lower appellate court is perverse and contrary to the record and judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Others Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352 (para-11.3). Para-11.3 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- 11.3 Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned lower appellate court has passed the judgment setting aside the judgment passed by the learned trial court, under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C., which reads as follows:- 5. Specific denial.-(1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability : Provided that the Court may in it discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. (2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. (3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader. (4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Balraj Taneja & Another Vs. Sunil Madan & Another reported in (1999) 8 SCC 396 . Para-26, 27 & 29 of the aforesaid are re-produced below: 26. The Proviso to this Section specifically gives a discretion to the Court to require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. The Proviso corresponds to the Proviso to Rule 5(1) Order 8 CPC. 27. Sunil Madan & Another reported in (1999) 8 SCC 396 . Para-26, 27 & 29 of the aforesaid are re-produced below: 26. The Proviso to this Section specifically gives a discretion to the Court to require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. The Proviso corresponds to the Proviso to Rule 5(1) Order 8 CPC. 27. In view of the above, it is clear that the Court, at no stage, can act blindly or mechanically. While enabling the Court to pronounce judgment in a situation where no Written Statement is filed by the defendant, the Court has also been given the discretion to pass such order as it may think fit as an alternative. This is also the position under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC where the Court can either pronounce judgment against the defendant or pass such order as it may think fit. 29. As pointed out earlier, the Court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his Written Statement nor the Court should proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a Written Statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the Court. In a case, specially where a Written Statement has not been filed by the defendant, the Court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of Court's satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the Court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the Written Statement. But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the Court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the Court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. Such a case would be covered by the expression "the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved" used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8, or the expression "may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" used in Rule 10 of Order 8. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the impugned judgment passed by learned lower appellate court is fit to be set aside as there is no evidence brought on record by the plaintiff to establish that the appellant / respondent / defendant was tenant in the suit premises and as such, this Court may admit the appeal and after hearing the parties may set aside the judgment passed the learned lower appellate court. 8. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment passed by both the courts below. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff purchased the suit property vide Registered Sale Deed No. 6636 dated 04.05.1998 from M/s Protective Saving Finance Ltd. Pursuant to the registration of sale deed, the name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the Government paper by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad vide order dated 24.04.2000, correction slip has been issued in his name and has duly acknowledged him as raiyat of the estate. Government rent receipt are also issued in his name. His name has been also mutated in Dhanbad Municipality on the aforesaid suit premises mentioned as Schedule-A. Since the defendant was tenant of the Vendor on monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-per month payable of 1st day of each English Calendar month for a portion at first floor described in Schedule-B premises, which is part of Schedule-A premises and after purchase, plaintiff / appellant / respondent has informed the defendant verbally on 06.05.1998 about the purchase of the aforesaid property and asked him to pay monthly rent to him from May, 1998. The defendant has agreed to do so, but did not pay the rent. The defendant has agreed to do so, but did not pay the rent. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit under Sections 11 (1)(c) & 11 (1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, as adopted by Government of Jharkhand, for eviction of suit premises on the ground of personal necessity and for realization of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 56,000/-for the period from May, 1998 to August, 2000. 9. An advocate notice dated 20.07.2000 also served upon the defendant calling him to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff on 01.09.2000 and also pay the arrears amount of rent but the said notice has been returned by the defendant under note “addressee always absent”. Defendant neither had given him vacant possession of the tenanted premises to him on 01.09.2000 nor he has paid the arrears of rent to him amounting to Rs. 56,000/-. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed after service of notice. After service of summons defendant appeared in this case on 24.07.2000, but did not file written statement within time, as such, the defendant was debarred from filing written statement vide order dated 01.09.2003. 10. Since, nobody appeared to contest the case, no issues have been framed. 11. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined altogether four witnesses, which are as follows : P.W.-1 : Rajinder Singh Chahal, who is plaintiff himself. P.W.-2 : Sunil Kumar Saha. P.W.-3 : Suprabhat Mukherjee. P.W.-4 : Ramchandra Ghosh. 12. The plaintiffs have also exhibited following documents, which are marked as Exhibits 1 to 9, which are as follows :- Exhibit-1 Series is revenue receipt. Exhibit-2 Series is Municipality rent receipt. These two exhibits have been issued in the name of plaintiff. Exhibit-3 is Advocate Notice. Exhibit-4 is the sale deed dated 04.05.1998, through which the plaintiff has claimed his right, title, interest over the suit property. Exhibit-5 is the mutation paper. Exhibit-6 is the assessement paper of Dhanbad Municipality. Exhibit-7 is the mutation paper of Dhanbad Municipality. Exhibit-8 is the correction paper issued from Dhanbad Municipality. Exhibit-9 is the order sheet of Circle Officer in the Mutation case 649 (iii) 94-2000 / 11 (iii) 2000-01. 13. From perusal of evidence, it appears that P.W.-1 Rajinder Singh Chahal proved Exhibit-1 to 4. Exhibit-6 is the assessement paper of Dhanbad Municipality. Exhibit-7 is the mutation paper of Dhanbad Municipality. Exhibit-8 is the correction paper issued from Dhanbad Municipality. Exhibit-9 is the order sheet of Circle Officer in the Mutation case 649 (iii) 94-2000 / 11 (iii) 2000-01. 13. From perusal of evidence, it appears that P.W.-1 Rajinder Singh Chahal proved Exhibit-1 to 4. This witness has completely supported his case and has further submitted that the defendant is residing in that premises as a tenant for monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-. The plaintiff has requirement of the land for his personal use apart from that, defendant has not paid rent to the plaintiff from May, 1998 to August, 2000. The plaintiff witness has not been cross-examined and thus, remained unrebutted. P.W.-2 Sunil Kumar Saha has also supported the case of the plaintiff. P.W.-3 Suprabhat Mukherjee in his evidence has stated that after purchasing the suit premises, mutation in the name of the plaintiff has been done in the Government Organization and rent was paid to the Government Organization as well as Dhanbad Municipality, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-5, 6, 7 & 8. This witness has further stated that notice through Advocate has been sent on 20.07.2000. P.W.-4 Ramchandra Ghosh has also supported the case of the plaintiff and has submitted that suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff on 04.05.1998, which has already brought on record as Exhibit-4 and his evidence has also remained unrebutted because of non-cross-examination made by the defendant. 14. The question arose before this Court about the power invoked by the learned trial court under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. and power invoked by the learned lower appellate court under Order VIII Rule 5 & 10 C.P.C. Much argument has been made on the behalf of the appellant that the trial court has rightly passed the order under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. and has pointed out defects in lower appellate court judgment with regard to Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C. and thus, placed reliance on judgment passed by learned Apex Court in the case of Balraj Taneja (Supra) and Kanaklata Das (Supra). 15. This Court has considered the provisions and has minutely gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. 15. This Court has considered the provisions and has minutely gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. The learned lower appellate court has rightly appreciated the facts and on the basis of evaluation of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff passed the judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C., though, the learned lower appellate court has referred the provisions of Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C., but from perusal of the judgment, it appears that learned appellate court has only written that if there is no specific denial as mentioned in Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C., though learned lower appellate court has examined the entire material brought on record particularly the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses and the exhibits and passed the judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. 16. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to the appellant as lower appellate court has not passed the judgment contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court, rather lower appellate court has considered the same in the spirit of law, though has not referred judgment passed by Apex Court, but nothing has been done by the lower appellate court contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court while giving finding in favour of the plaintiff / appellant / respondent. 17. This Court has considered the evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses. They have categorically stated that after purchasing the property by the plaintiff from Company M/s Protective Saving Finance Ltd., the Government Organizations have been informed and Dhanbad Municipality has been informed, even the tenant has been informed orally and thereafter tenant agreed to pay the rent, but did not do the same. Thus, the plaintiff sent an Advocate notice on 20.07.2000, which was returned as “addressee always absent”. Thus, the suit was filed and the defendant / tenant appeared on 24.07.2000, but did not choose to file written statement. 18. This Court has made a query from the learned counsel for the appellant that what is his locus standi in the suit premises. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha on the instruction has fairly submitted that tenant is not claiming title in himself, rather he admits that he is tenant of the vendor of the plaintiff M/s Protective Saving Finance Ltd. 20. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha on the instruction has fairly submitted that tenant is not claiming title in himself, rather he admits that he is tenant of the vendor of the plaintiff M/s Protective Saving Finance Ltd. 20. This Court has considered the judgment and has failed to appreciate that the contrary judgment has been passed by the learned lower appellate court, rather judgment passed by the lower appellate court is in consonance with the judgment passed by the Apex Court and these judgments are not supporting the case of the defendant / respondent / appellant in any way, as the learned lower appellate court has rightly considered the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Balraj Taneja (Supra), where it has been held that “in a case, specially where a Written Statement has not been filed by the defendant, the Court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of Court's satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the Court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the Written Statement”. 21. This Court has also perused the judgment placed by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Kanaklata Das (Supra). The relationship of the vendor of the plaintiff and the defendant / respondent / appellant, is of tenant, who is the appellant before this Court and being the tenant is admitting its position and not claiming title in himself. 22. The relationship of the vendor of the plaintiff and the defendant / respondent / appellant, is of tenant, who is the appellant before this Court and being the tenant is admitting its position and not claiming title in himself. 22. This Court is satisfied after perusing the judgment passed by learned lower appellate court and the lower appellate court has taken all precautions while passing the judgment and has rightly appreciated that the defendant is the tenant and he has tried to delay the process by appearing, but neither filed the written statement, nor challenge the order whereby the defendant has been debarred from filing written statement on 01.09.2003 and defendant has not cross-examined the Prosecution Witnesses, even though the defendant is debarred from filing written statement, but he has not cross-examined the witnesses also. 23. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appreciation made by learned lower appellate court does not require any interference by this Court and the order has been passed under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C., though incidentally written as under Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C., as such, the same does not require any interference by this Court. 24. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court is affirmed. 25. Consequently, I.A. No. 2359/2009, which was filed under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for stay of proceeding of the Execution Case No. 29/2008 is closed. 26. Let L.C.R. be remitted to the court below at once.