Civil Suit No. 118 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 & 11.12.2023 respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in R.F.A. No.09 of 2020, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020 & 07.03.2020 respectively passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Civil Suit No.118 of 2015. ---- Bharati Khuntia & Others Binayak Pattnayak -versus- …. …. Appellants Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant- For Respondents - M/s. Ajit Chandra Mohapatra, A.K. Panda, B. K. Panda Advocates M/s. Bibekananda Bhuyan, S.S. Bhuyan, S. Sahoo, S.S. Mohapatra Advocates
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DATE OF HEARING :20.02.2024:: DATE OF JUDGMENT:01.03.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), have assailed R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 Page 1 of 8 {{ 2 }} the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 & 11.12.2023 respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in R.F.A. No.09 of 2020. The Respondent as the Plaintiff had filed the suit (Civil Suit No.118 of 2015) in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagatsinghpur arraigning the predecessor-in-interest of these Appellants, namely, Batakrushna Khuntia as the sole Defendant. The suit was for eviction of the original Defendant and delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises. The suit stood decreed directing the original Defendant to give vacant possession of the suit schedule rooms by the end of 20.06.2020 with further direction to the Respondent-Plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,84,565/- to the original Defendant. The original Defendant, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, carried an Appeal under section 96 of the Code. During pendency of the said Appeal, original Defendant, namely, Batakrushna Khuntia having died, these Appellants being his legal representatives have come on record as the substituted Defendants and pursued the Appeal as the Appellants. The First Appeal has been dismissed directing the Appellants (Defendants) to deliver vacant possession of the suit rooms standing on the suit land to the Respondent-Plaintiff by R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 Page 2 of 8 {{ 3 }} 31.12.2023. Hence the present Second Appeal has been filed by these Appellants, who are the substituted Defendants. 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 is that there are several Pucca rooms standing over the suit land. The original Defendant and his brother were inducted as tenants in respect of two of such rooms. Subsequently, the Plaintiff and his brother extended the rooms and constructed the first floor. The original Defendant had paid advance of Rs.5,80,000/- to the Plaintiff for his proposed tenancy in the first floor. On 01.12.2007, there was an agreement between them to the effect that the Defendant would pay a sum of Rs.1800/- per month for his occupation of the room in the ground floor and the advance of Rs.5,80,000/- would be adjusted towards the future rent for his occupation of the room on the first floor at the rate of Rs.2685/- per month for 18 years. It is stated that this rent for 18 years which comes to Rs.5,79,960/- is close to the amount advanced. So, in November, 2014, the tenancy was terminated, rent for the ground floor room for occupation of the original Defendant had been paid up to June, 2014. Rent for the first floor occupation stood adjusted by the end of November, 2014 to the extent of Rs.2,22,855/-. The Plaintiff then informed the original Defendant that those rooms are required Page 3 of 8 R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 {{ 4 }} for his personal use. The Defendant, however, kept the rooms under lock and key. The Plaintiff, therefore, issued notice terminating the tenancy. The Defendant did not deliver the vacant possession of the suit room. The tenancy was terminated since December, 2014. The suit, therefore, was filed by the Plaintiff. 4. The original Defendant pleaded that the agreement between the parties executed on 01.01.2006 has remained in force till 31.12.2023. It is stated that the termination of the tenancy notice was not given. It is further pleaded that there was understanding that the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- shall be adjusted towards the rent for the rooms in occupation in the ground floor and the first floor. Accordingly, the parties had entered into agreement on 01.01.2006 for a period of 18 years. The agreement included the condition that the Plaintiff shall pay Rs.5,80,000/- to the Defendant without interest and shall remain with the Plaintiff till expiry of the term of the agreement. The Defendant shall go on paying the rent for occupation of the rooms on both the floors till then. The combined rent for both the floors was Rs.1850/- per month. The Defendant claims that nothing out of that advance amount of Rs.5,80,000/- had been adjusted towards the rent. 5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court having framed nine issues has answered those all in favour of the Plaintiff. The suit being decreed for recovery of possession. The Plaintiff was also Page 4 of 8 R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 {{ 5 }} directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,84,565/- to the original Defendant which remained unadjusted. 6. The original Defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, had carried the First Appeal. The First Appeal stood disposed of with the modification as to the direction to the Plaintiff to pay the sum of Rs.1,84,565/- and instead, the Defendants were directed to give delivery of vacant possession of the suit rooms to the Plaintiff by 31.12.2023, which was the period extended so that no further financial liability of the Plaintiff would be there. 7. Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there being no valid termination of the tenancy in accordance with law as provided under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the suit ought to have been dismissed. He, therefore, urged for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial question of law. He submitted that since the Defendants before leaving the tenants premises would have to find out a suitable alternative accommodation for the business to run, keeping in view that the tenancy was for a long period, this Court in the interest of justice should in the alternative consider and grant one year more time to R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 Page 5 of 8 {{ 6 }} the Defendants to vacate the tenanted premises subject to of course upon regular payment of rent. 8. Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, on behalf of Mr. B.N. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that since as per the case of the Defendant, the agreement was in force till 31.12.2023, by which date, the entire advance money paid by the Defendant stands adjusted towards the rent, the First Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit directing the Defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises on or before 31.12.2023. He submitted that in view of the very case of the original Defendant which these Defendants have adopted that the tenancy would stand terminated, that itself is enough to hold in favour of the termination of tenancy. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. 10. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the original Defendant as landlord and tenant is not in dispute. When the Plaintiff claims that the tenancy has been terminated by issuance of notice; the Defendants case is that the tenancy was to remain in force till 31.12.2023 as per the agreement. It has also been stated that the agreed rent payable for the occupation of the tenanted premises by the Defendant being adjusted from the advance paid by the Defendant to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/-, the advance would get R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 Page 6 of 8 {{ 7 }} exhausted towards the rent payable for the tenanted premises up till 31.12.2023. In the above admitted factual setting, the First Appellate Court having directed the Defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the Plaintiff on or before 31.12.2023 without paying any further amount towards the rent to the Plaintiff, who would have also no monetary claim over the Defendants, this Court finds no such error therein. For the aforesaid discussion and reason, this Court is not in a position to accept with the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants (Defendants) that there arises any substantial question of law for being answered meriting admission of this Appeal. The Appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. 11. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Defendants having remained in occupation of the tenanted premises for such a long period, time would be required in order to search out some alternative space for their business, for which, they should be given some more time to deliver vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the Plaintiff; in the interest of justice and further keeping in view the fact that the tenancy was for quite a long period of time; the Defendants are hereby directed to deliver vacant possession of the tenanted R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 Page 7 of 8 {{ 8 }} premises to the Plaintiff on expiry of 31st day of August, 2024. However, for such period of occupation of the tenanted premises from January, 2024 till August, 2024, they would be going on to pay the rent of Rs.1850/- per month to the Plaintiff. The rent towards January, 2024 and February, 2024 together be paid by 20th day of the March, 2024 and the rent for the rest months up till July, 2024 would be paid by the 15th day of the succeeding month of occupation whereas the rent for the month of August, 2024 shall be paid on 31st August, 2024. Failure to comply the above would invite legal consequences for violation of the directions of this Court and in that event the matter would be viewed seriously.
Decision
12. The Appeal is accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to cost. Gitanjali (D. Dash), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 05-Mar-2024 10:57:25 R.S.A. No.570 of 2023 Page 8 of 8