) Madan Lal Rathi, S/o Late Murli Dhar Rathi, resident of Indrapuri Road No v. 1. Suresh Choudhary 2. Ramesh Choudhary, both sons of Late Nandu Choudhry 3. Reeta
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 48 of 2013 (Against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner –IV, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 65 of 2007) Madan Lal Rathi, S/o Late Murli Dhar Rathi, resident of Indrapuri Road No. 1, Ratu Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdev Nagar, Dist.- Ranchi …... Appellant/ Appellant/ Defendant Versus 1. Suresh Choudhary 2. Ramesh Choudhary, both sons of Late Nandu Choudhry 3. Reeta Banka 4. Sunita Agarwal 5. Anita Agarwal, all daughters of Late Nandu Choudhry 6. Manish Choudhry @ Jonny, son of Late Dayaram Choudhry 7. Babita Devi 8. Lovely Devi 9. Sweta Devi, all daughters of late Dayaram Choudhry 10. (a)Usha Devi, W/o Late Nirmal Choudhry 10. (b)Abhishekh Choudhry 10. (c) Bunty Choudhry, both s/o late Nirmal Choudhry 10. (d) Lovely Devi, D/o Late Nirmal Choudhry, All residents of Baralal Street Upper Bazar, Ranchi, P.O. &P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi 11. Munni Devi, W/o Sri Mahabir Prasad Agarwal, D/o Late Savitri Devi Choudhary, residing at C/o Ram and Shyam, P.O., P.S. and Dist.- Baripada (Orrissa) ….. Respondents/ Respondents / Plaintiffs For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha , Adv. Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha , Adv : Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar , Adv P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013 passed by the 1 SA No. 48 of 2013 learned Judicial Commissioner –IV, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 65 of 2007 whereby and where under, learned
Legal Reasoning
Judicial Commissioner –IV, Ranchi affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge – IV, Ranchi in Eviction (T) Suit no. 38 of 2002 dated 28.03.2007 and dismissed the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff filed Eviction (T) Suit no. 38 of 2002 with prayer for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity of the suit property. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff being the owner of the suit property inducted the defendant as a month to month tenant in respect of the suit property which is a big shop room having an area of about 550 sq. ft. on the first floor of the building on the monthly rent of Rs. 1375/-. The defendant became irregular in making payment of rent and since October 2001 the defendant stopped the payment of the rent. The plaintiff also pleaded that the suit property was required for the personal necessity of the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant of the suit but the defendant claimed that he has entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property and the plaintiff contented that the defence set up by the defendant as a reply to the legal notice is false one, and the suit was filed. The defendant in his written statement, besides challenging the suit on various technical grounds, further pleaded that the defendant was inducted as tenant but on 18.04.1997, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant and since that date, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, came to an end and since 18.04.1997, no rent was due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant and as per the terms of the agreement for sale, 2 SA No. 48 of 2013 the defendant failed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- out of the total agreed consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, hence, defendant has not committed any default in payment of the rental dues. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, learned trial court settled the following ten issues :- I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Is there any cause of action for the suit? III. Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties prior to the filing of this suit and on the date of filing of the suit? IV. Has the defendant defaulted in payment of rent from October, 2001? V. Whether the plaintiff required the suit premises? VI. Whether plaintiff no.1 entered into an agreement for the sale of suit premises on 18 4.97 and after that the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist? VII. Whether plaintiff reasonably and in good faith required the suit premises for the purpose of business of plaintiff/respondent no.2 or not? VIII. Whether partial eviction from the suit premises will serve the purpose of plaintiff nor not? IX. Is the plaintiff entitled to relief as claimed? X. Whether plaintiff are entitled to any other relief or reliefs? 6. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined six witnesses but did not produce any document. From the side of the defendant, 06 witnesses were examined and defendant also proved the documents, marked as Ext. A to F/1. 7. Learned trial court first took up issue nos. (I) and (III) and (VI) together and after considering the evidence in the record, came to conclusion that the defendant could not establish the genuineness of the agreement for sale and also held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and defendant and decided 3 SA No. 48 of 2013 the issued nos. I, III and VI in favour of the plaintiff. 8. Learned trial court then took up issue no. IV and answered that the defendant is defaulter within the meaning of Section 11(1) (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 9. Learned trial court next took up issue nos. V and VII together and considering the evidence in the record, came to conclusion that the plaintiff no. 1 required the suit premises personally for setting up plaintiff no. 2 and the plaintiffs reasonably in good faith, required the suit premises for the purpose of plaintiff no. 2 and decided the two issues in favour of the plaintiff. 10. Learned trial court then took up issue no. VIII and after considering the evidence in the record, came to conclusion that the evidence in the record is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff required whole premises. 11. Learned trial court lastly took up issue nos. II, IX and X together and decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit on contest and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of the judgment. 12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, the defendant filed Title Appeal No. 65 of 2007 in the court of learned Judicial Commissioner – IV, Ranchi, which was ultimately heard and disposed of by learned First Appellate Court by the impugned order as already indicated above. 13. Learned First Appellate Court formulated the following two points for determination: (i) Whether there is landlord tenant relationship between the parties ? (ii) Whether the defendant/appellant has rendered himself liable to be evicted under Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(d) of the Building Act ? (iii) Whether there is a valid agreement for sale between the parties and pursuant to the 4 SA No. 48 of 2013 agreement for sale whether the possession of the defendant/appellant is that of a tenant or that of a purchaser in terms of the doctrine of part performance of contract? 14. Learned First Appellate Court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and affirmed the finding of the leaned Sub-ordinate Judge IV, Ranchi in respect of the existence of the landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and also went on to hold that learned trial court has not committed any error in holding that the defendant is liable for eviction, under Section 11(1) (d) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and dismissed the appeal. 15. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below have committed serious error of law in holding that even after execution of agreement of sale dated 18.04.1997, the status of defendant /appellant continues as of tenant. It is next submitted that the both the court below have failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in their correct perspective and have arrived at a wrong conclusion, hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and suit of the plaintiff be dismissed after formulating the appropriate substantial question of law. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that both the courts below have arrived at concurrent finding of facts based on the evidence in the record and the defendant has miserably failed to establish his plea that agreement of sale was ever entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 5 SA No. 48 of 2013 17. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that perversity, so far as it relates to interfering with the findings of fact by exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding, so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law or if the finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or the evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those findings then the findings may be said to be perverse, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216, para 28 of which reads as under : “28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [(2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685].“ and the same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs R.Vijaya Renganathan and Others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 483 and which has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. 6 SA No. 48 of 2013 Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 694. 18. Now coming to the facts of the case, both the courts below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record, have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the defendant failed to establish his case of existence of agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant and as it is the admitted case of the defendant that he was inducted as a tenant within the suit premises by the plaintiff and he did not pay the rent on the ground that he entered into an agreement for sale; so, once it is held that there was no valid agreement for sale between the parties, which are the ground for non-payment of the rental dues by the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff has to be decreed on the ground of default in payment of rent for 2 months, in view of the admitted relationship landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. This court also after going through the materials in the record does not find any illegality having been committed by both the courts below in arriving at the conclusion that there was personal necessity for the plaintiffs of the suit premises. 19. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below cannot be termed as perverse and that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 20. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 21. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 22nd July, 2024 Smita /AFR 7 SA No. 48 of 2013