Satya Narayan Agarwal, aged about 59 years, son of late Nathmal Agarwal, resident of v. 1. Banani Bit, wife of late Dilip Kumar Bit 2. Debashish Bit 3. Subhasish
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.90 of 2023 ------ Satya Narayan Agarwal, aged about 59 years, son of late Nathmal Agarwal, resident of Sanapatti, Jharia, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Banani Bit, wife of late Dilip Kumar Bit 2. Debashish Bit 3. Subhasish Bit both sons of late Dilip Kumar Bit All resident of Sonapatti, Jharia, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad .... …. Respondents …. For the Appellant ------ : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate : Ms. Sugandha Jaiswal Poddar, Advocate ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of concurrence dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No.102 of 2019 whereby
Legal Reasoning
and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal on contest and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned trial court being the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-V, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 16 of 2012 by which the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-V, Dhanbad decreed the suit of the plaintiff filed with a prayer for a decree of eviction against the defendant on the ground that the defendant has not paid monthly rent from December, 2011; on contest. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff is the owner of 1 Second Appeal No. 90 of 2023 the suit premises and the defendant was inducted as a tenant for running his jewelry shop at a monthly rent of Rs.325/-. The defendant stopped paying rent from December, 2011. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 03.04.2012 and requested the defendant to vacate the tenanted premises. In response to the notice, the defendant admitted that he is a tenant but contended that he is not a defaulter and threatened to indulge the plaintiff in litigation. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. In his written statement, the defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and pleaded that the defendant was never a tenant under the plaintiff nor paid any rent to the plaintiff. The defendant has originally handed over the tenanted premises 20 years ago to the original owner Ranjit Kumar Bit. Thereafter the Ranjit Kumar Bit inducted the defendant as a tenant. After death of Satya Narayan Agarwalla his two sons Suresh Agarwalla and Rakesh Agarwalla jointly running the business of jewelry in the tenanted shop but the plaintiff with a mala fide intention kept on issuing the rent receipt in the name of Satya Narayan Agarwalla even though Satya Narayan Agarwalla never paid the rent in connection with the said premises. So the question of non-payment of rent of December, 2011 does not arise. 5. During the pendency of the suit, Rakesh Agarwalla filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure to get himself impleaded as defendant no.2 which was rejected by the learned trial court. 2 Second Appeal No. 90 of 2023 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following six issues: - (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between plaintiff and defendant? (iii) Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of eviction? (v) Whether plaintiff is entitled for any other relief? (vi) Whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action for filing the present suit? 7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as a witness and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to 4. On the other hand from the side of the defendant, the defendant examined altogether three witnesses and also proved the documents which have been marked Ext. A to F. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue no. (ii) and considering the evidence in the record including the rent receipts of 1st October, 2011, 1st November, 2011 and 1st December, 2011 which has been marked Ext. 1 to 1/B as well as the rent receipts proved by the defendant and marked Ext. A to D being issued on behalf of the mother of the plaintiff; came to the conclusion that the defendant is the tenant of the suit premises, so the relationship of landlord and tenant exits between the plaintiff and the defendant and answered the issue no. (ii) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The learned trial court next took up issue no. (iii) and considered the evidence in the record that the defendant though claimed through D.W.3, that D.W.3 has paid rent through money order to the plaintiff; yet the defendant could produce the documents pertaining to the same. The trial Court then considered that the plaintiff adduced evidence to the effect that the defendant 3 Second Appeal No. 90 of 2023 has not paid the rent since December, 2011 onwards and basing upon such consideration of the evidence in the record; the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiff till institution of the suit and as per Section 11 (1) (d) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control, Act since the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent for more than two consecutive months hence, the trial court decided the issue no. (iii) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The learned trial court next took up issue nos. (i) and (vi) and as the cause of action arose on 01.02.2012 when two consecutive months’ rent remained due, the learned trial court held that the suit is within time and the plaintiff has valid cause of action to file the suit and decided the issue nos. (i) and (vi) against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Lastly, the learned trial court took up the issue nos. (iv) and (v) and held that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for eviction and decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over the tenanted suit premises to the plaintiff within three months. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the defendant filed Civil Appeal No.102 of 2019 in the court of Principal District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgement and decree. 10. The learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad on the basis of the materials in the record and the submissions before it, formulated the following three points for determination: - 4 Second Appeal No. 90 of 2023 (i) Whether, there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of tenanted premises? (ii) Whether the appellant/defendant paid any rent from December, 2011 to March, 2012? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court require any interference? 11. The learned first appellate court first took up the point for determination no. (i) and after making independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and considering the admission of D.W.3 in his cross-examination that he is running the shop at the behest of Satya Narayan Agarwalla, observed that therefore, the claim of Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla, paying rent to the plaintiff is of no consequence and concurred with the learned trial court that there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned first appellate court next took up point for determination no. (ii) and after considering the evidence in the record that the defendant could not mention any date, month or year when the rent for the period of December, 2011, January, 2012 and February, 2012 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff nor any documentary evidence in respect of the same could be produced by the defendant; the learned first appellate court came to the conclusion that the defendant defaulted in payment of the rent from December, 2011 to March, 2012. Lastly, the learned first appellate court took up the point for determination no. (iii) and held that there is no illegality in the 5 Second Appeal No. 90 of 2023 judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 12.
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below have failed to consider that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of formal agreement between the parties in respect of tenancy, the courts below ought not to have held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgements and decree passed by both the course below being not sustainable in law, be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant-Satya Narayan Agarwalla submits that Rakesh Agarwalla is the tenant of the suit premises hence, non-joinder of Rakesh Agarwalla as a party, makes the suit bad for nonjoinder of a necessary party and joinder of Satya Narayan Agarwalla as a party to the suit amounts to mis-joinder of a party. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, as categorically held by the learned first appellate court that Rakesh Agarwalla filed a petition to be impleaded as a party to the suit under Order I Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure but the same was rejected by the 6 Second Appeal No. 90 of 2023 learned trial court. There is no material in the record to show that the same was ever challenged thus, such order has attained finality. It is also pertinent to mention here that the learned first appellate court has in no uncertain manner considered the admission made by D.W.3- the defendant himself, wherein he has categorically stated that he is running a shop at the behest of Satya Narayan Agarwalla-the appellant-defendant of this appeal and under such categorical finding of fact by the learned first appellate court, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the appellants, that the courts below have failed to consider that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties or mis-joinder of parties. 15. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding non- existence of any formal agreement between the parties vis-(cid:224)-vis the landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the receipt of payment of rent filed by the plaintiff which has been marked Ext. 1 to 1/B and the defendant which have been marked Ext. A to D goes to show that the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff as a tenant in respect of which Ext. 1 to 1/B has been executed and the rent was paid to the mother of the plaintiff for which Ext. A to D have been executed. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below that such documents are sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 7 Second Appeal No. 90 of 2023 defendant. Thus, this Court do not find any merit in this contention of the appellant. 17. Further, there is no perversity in the finding of facts arrived at by the first appellate court, as such finding of facts is not based on no evidence nor such finding of fact has been arrived at by considering any inadmissible evidence or by not considering any admissible evidence nor the finding of fact can be termed as outrageously defying any logic, so this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 18. Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 19. Let the copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 29th October, 2024 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 8 Second Appeal No. 90 of 2023