Smt v. Seeta Laxmi @ Bhi Seeta Devi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.108 of 2016 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the judgment dated 15th December, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Koraput in R.F.A. No.09 of 2013 confirming the judgment dated 22nd August, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Koraput in Civil Suit No.97 of 2010. Smt. V. Seeta Laxmi @ Bhi Seeta Devi ---- -versus- …. Appellant Reliance Infratel Limited …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - M/s.D.R.Bhokta, N.Afreen, J.N.Murty & T.G.N. Murty (Advocate) For Respondents -
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 25.01.2024 : Date of Judgment:08.02.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment dated 15th December, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Koraput in R.F.A. No.09 of 2013. RSA No.108 of 2016 Page 1 of 6 {{ 2 }} The Appellant, as the Plaintiff, had filed Civil Suit No.97 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Koraput praying for recovery of a sum of Rs.54,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Four Thousand) with pendentlite and future interest from the Respondent arraigned as the Defendant towards arrear rent with further direction to pay the monthly rent for the leasehold site regularly every month. The suit, having been dismissed, the Appellant, as the unsuccessful Plaintiff, had carried the Appeal under section 96 of the Code, which too has been dismissed. Hence, the present Appeal is at the instance of the Appellant, who has been the unsuccessful Plaintiff in both the Courts below. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit. 3. Plaintiff’s Case:- The Plaintiff, namely, Smt. Vaisyaraju Seeta Laxmi @ Bhi Seeta Devi, is the owner in possession of the land under Plot No.134 with Khata No.26/6 of Mouza-Dabuguda under Machkund Tahasil. The Defendant is a Company engaged in providing telecom services throughout the country. It is stated that for installing telephone towers and for carrying on providing telecom services in the locality, they installed towers in different places. For the purpose, the Defendant had taken the land of the RSA No.108 of 2016 Page 2 of 6 {{ 3 }} Plaintiff on lease. The approach was made by the Defendant through one V. Mohan Rao from whom the Defendant, at Village- Lamtaput had taken the land on lease and had erected the tower over there. The Plaintiff and Defendant-Company settled the terms and conditions of lease and accordingly, on 06.08.2008, the lease deed was executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant represented by one Sankarsan Mangaraj, who signed the said lease deed for and on behalf of the Defendant-Company. As per the terms, the Defendant-Company was to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per month towards the rent. The possession of the land covered under the lease deed was delivered to the Defendant on 06.08.2008. The authorized representative of the Defendant-Company retained the original lease agreement with him and provided a copy of the same to the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not pay the rent had been as agreed upon. When there was total failure on the part of the Defendant to pay the rent, the Plaintiff issued notice demanding payment of the arrear and current rent at the rate as agreed upon. The Defendant, in response to the notice, refuted the case/claim of the Plaintiff as regards the lease. It is stated that the person, who is stated to have signed the lease deed posing himself as the person authorized on behalf of the Defendant-Company, had never been authorized to do so. The Defendant-Company finally refuted its liability by giving reply to the notice sent by the Plaintiff. RSA No.108 of 2016 Page 3 of 6 {{ 4 }} 4. The Defendant, in the suit, did not come forward to contest the suit. 5. The Trial Court, examining the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 as also the documents admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 12, has finally come to conclude that the Plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the said lease deed (Ext.5) has been signed by the person authorized on behalf of the Defendant-Company and thus, it can be said to be a deed of lease between the Plaintiff and Shankar Mangaraj for which the Defendant-Company cannot be saddled with any liability. The suit, having been dismissed on this finding, the First Appellate Court has concurred with the same. 6. Mr.D.R.Bhokta, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that once the said deed in question (Ext.5) has been admitted in evidence and marked without objection, the Courts below ought not to have concluded that Shankar Mangaraj, the signatory to the said lease deed on behalf of the Defendant- Company, was not their authorized person. He further submitted that the Plaintiff, having proved Exts.3 & 5, which have not faced any objection, the Courts below have gone wrong in dismissing the suit on the ground that the lease deed (Ext.5) was not between the Plaintiff and the Defendant-Company but between the Plaintiff and Shankar Mangaraj. He, therefore, urged for RSA No.108 of 2016 Page 4 of 6 {{ 5 }} admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial questions of law. 7. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the rival pleadings and the evidence both oral and documentary let in the parties, as placed. 8. The Courts below have concurrently found the Plaintiff to have not been able to prove that the Defendant-Company had authorized Shankarsan Mangaraj to sign the deed of lease on their behalf. The Defendant-Company, as it appears from the very beginning of the time of receipt of notice, has raised that objection in denying their liability in the matter of payment of rent. The Defendant-Company has not paid the rent at any point of time. As per the case of the Plaintiff for the said lease of their land for erection of the tower, the Plaintiff thus when has simply proved the copy of the lease deed that would not be enough to record a finding that Shankar Mangaraj was the authorized signatory to the said lease deed on behalf of the Defendant- Company for the said purpose. No such other correspondence prior to the lease or after the lease with the Defendant-Company has been proved from the side of the Plaintiff. The lease deed does not indicate as to who on behalf of the Defendant-Company had so authorized. The Plaintiff has also not taken any step to RSA No.108 of 2016 Page 5 of 6 {{ 6 }} summon Shankar Mangaraj as a witness on her behalf to speak on oath as to under which status he signed in the said lease deed and how he was clothed with the authority. In view of these above, this Court finds no such perversity in the final conclusion of both the Courts below that the Plaintiff has not been able to establish that there was lease of her land in favour of the Defendant-Company so as to be entitled to the tent as per the terms and conditions of the said lease deed. 9. For all those aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appeal merits admission to answer the substantial questions of law, as pointed out above, cannot be countenanced with. 10. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Basu (D. Dash), Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 09-Feb-2024 16:20:44 RSA No.108 of 2016 Page 6 of 6