Kameshwar Prajapati, aged about 56 years, son of late Tarini Prajapati, resident of Village-Banta v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.200 of 2018 ------ Kameshwar Prajapati, aged about 56 years, son of late Tarini Prajapati, resident of Village-Banta, P.O. & P.S.-Silli, Dist.-Ranchi Versus .... .... …. Appellant Bindeshwari Prajapati, son of late Tarini Prajapati, resident of Village- Banta, P.O. & P.S.-Silli, Dist.-Ranchi ... .... …. Respondents For the Appellant For the Respondent ------ : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate : Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate : Mr. Niraj N. Mishra, Advocate ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:-
Legal Reasoning
Heard the parties. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No. 06 of 2017 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi has set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of Eviction Title Suit No. 20 of 2013 passed by Munsif, Ranchi dated 21.01.2017 and allowed the appeal directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of such decree. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff being the owner of the suit premises inducted his own brother as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The defendant paid rent up to the month of July, 2011 but thereafter stopped paying the rent and denied to 1 Second Appeal No. 200 of 2018 vacate the house. The plaintiff filed suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and also for khas possession to be given to the plaintiff, cost of the suit and other reliefs. 4. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined altogether seven witnesses and proved documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 9. 5. Notice was served upon the defendant and the substituted service of notice was also made by publishing the contents of the notice in the newspaper but even then the defendant who is the appellant in this second appeal did not appear before the learned trial court and also did not file any written statement and he was set ex-parte. 6. The learned trial court after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has totally failed to establish his case that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No.06 of 2017 in the court of Judicial Commissioner,
Decision
Ranchi which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 8. In the first appeal before the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi also the defendant who is the appellant in the second appeal did not appear even after service of notice. The learned first appellate court being the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi considered the testimony of the seven 2 Second Appeal No. 200 of 2018 witnesses of the plaintiff and documents including the Ext.8 which is the report of an independent public servant –Circle Officer which goes to show that the suit premises was constructed by the plaintiff and the same was given to the defendant as a tenant but the defendant refused to vacate the said suit premises as well as the unchallenged testimony of all the witnesses of the plaintiff regarding the fact that the plaintiff inducted the defendant as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500/- and the defendant failed to pay the rent after July, 2011 and the two months period was over in August, 2011 and came to the conclusion that the evidence in the record established relationship of landlord and tenant and in default in payment of the rent for two months decreed eviction suit after setting aside the judgment of dismissal passed in Eviction Title Suit No. 20 of 2013 by the Munsif, as already indicated above. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned first appellate court has failed to consider the provisions contained in Section 11 (1) (d) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 and also failed to consider that there is no evidence in the record regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi being not sustainable in law be set aside, after formulating appropriate substantial question of law and the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Ranchi in Eviction Suit No. 20 of 2013 be restored. 3 Second Appeal No. 200 of 2018 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that Section 11 (1) (d) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 states that tenant in possession of a building shall not be liable to eviction from such building except where the amount of two months rent lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within the time fixed by the contract or in absence of such contract by the last day of the month next following that, for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance with Section 16 of the said Act. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is specific averment made by the plaintiff that the plaintiff inducted the defendant as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500/- and the defendant did not pay the rent after July, 2011. The suit was filed in the year 2013 for eviction. In support of its contention, the plaintiff examined seven witnesses, the deposition of which has been discussed in detail by the learned first appellate court. The documents including the report of an independent public servant like Circle Officer which has been marked Ext.8; goes to show that the suit premises was constructed by the plaintiff, in which the defendant was inducted as a tenant but the defendant refused to vacate the same. The witnesses of the plaintiff being P.Ws. 2 to 6 have categorically stated about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant defaulted in payment of the rent and their testimony remains 4 Second Appeal No. 200 of 2018 unchallenged and trustworthy. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned first appellate court in setting aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the Munsif, Ranchi and decreeing the suit for eviction and directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises within 60 days. 13. In view of the discussion made above, this Court does not find any substantial questions of law involved in this appeal. 14. Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs. 15. Let the copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th July, 2024 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 5 Second Appeal No. 200 of 2018