Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Parmesh Miri, S/o Churavan Miri - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kumari Bai, Wd/o Late Kalicharan - Respondents
SA No. 99 of 2017
Decided On : 19-07-2022
Eviction - Transfer of Property Act - Section 106, Section 105, Section 107 - The court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. The defendant was directed to give vacant possession of the house and pay arrears of rent and damages. The court held that the oral tenancy can be executed as per Section 106 of the Act, 1882, and the house was bonafidely required by the plaintiff. The court also dismissed the application for taking additional evidence on record by way of document.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction of the defendant, possession of the suit property, and recovery of arrears of rent. The defendant denied the allegations made in the plaint and claimed joint ownership of the property. After the trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had title over the suit property, the tenancy was executed orally, and the house was bonafidely required by the plaintiff. The court also dismissed the application for taking additional evidence on record by way of document.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the tenancy, non-payment of rent by the defendant, and the bonafide requirement of the suit property by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to establish the existence of the oral tenancy and the bonafide requirement of the suit property by the plaintiff. The court also dismissed the application for taking additional evidence on record by way of document.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal at motion stage itself under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 11 read with Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard on admission.
2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 01-A/2015 (Parmesh Miri Vs. Smt. Kumaribai), affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2015 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. S 90A/2014.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. S 90A/2014 which was filed before the trial Court for eviction of defendant, possession of the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent.
4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments, are that the plaintiff has filed the civil suit mainly contending that the plaintiff is title holder of the house i.e. suit property situated at Karhi, Tahsil-Mungeli, District- Bilaspur mentioned in Schedule- A of the plaint. The house has been given to the defendant on rent of Rs. 500/- per month from 10.08.2010. Since the plaintiff and defendants belong to same family having good relation, therefore, they have not made any document and as per the oral agreement, the tenancy starts from 10th day of every month and expires on 9th day of next month. The defendant has paid rent to the plaintiff for six months and thereafter, he stopped to pay the rent. The plaintiff is widow lady, therefore, considering her incapability, the defendant is not giving rent. It has been further contended that the plaintiff has bonafidely required house, therefore, she asked the defendant to give vacant possession of the house as well as for arrears of rent, but he refused to give vacant possession, as such, the plaintiff has given notice through her counsel, which was received by the defendant on 02.09.2011, still he has neither given vacant possession nor paid the rent till date and since then, he has occupied the house as encroacher. It has been further contended that the plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the suit house and rent of seven months from 15.02.2011 to 15.09.2011 @ Rs. 500/- per month i.e. total Rs. 3500/- and damages of Rs. 100/- from 15.09.2011.
5. The defendant has filed reply denying the allegation made in the plaint mainly contending that the plaintiff is not title holder of the suit house mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. He has denied that he has taken the house on rent from the plaintiff from 10.08.2010 @ Rs. 500/- per month. He has also denied that the tenancy was orally done. He has also denied that the tenancy starts on 10th day of every month and expired on 9th day of next month. He has denied that he has paid rent to the plaintiff and stopped to pay the rent after six months. He has also denied that the house is bonafidely required to the plaintiff. He has also denied that the plaintiff has requested orally for giving vacant possession and also to give arrears of rent. He has denied that the plaintiff has sent legal notice for terminating the tenancy from 14.09.2011, which has been received by him on 02.09.2011. He has denied that he is residing in the suit house mentioned at Schedule-A of the plaint as encroacher. He has stated that the suit house has been constructed on government land, which was constructed by the plaintiff and defendant jointly prior to 10- 15 years incurring the expenses equally. The defendant being joint holder of the property has occupied one room in which, he is residing along with his family and the house constructed West side of the property has been given on rent to one Sonwani who is teacher. The plaintiff and her son have occupied two rooms and the defendant has never resided in the suit house as tenant.
6. It has been further contended that the plaintiff has made an attempt to evict the defendant for getting illegal possession of the suit property and she has taken illegal action against him. It has been furth
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to establish the existence of the oral tenancy and the bonafide requirement o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, specifically regarding tenant holding ov....
In tenancy disputes, the admissibility of evidence, the application of procedural rules such as Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, and the need for exceptional circumstances for extension of time for filing wri....
Every sovereign legislature possesses the right to make retrospective legislation. The power to make laws includes power to give it retrospective effect.
A tenant cannot dictate a landlord's needs; once a tenancy is terminated by notice, the tenant's status may shift to tenant at sufferance, allowing for eviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for eviction was within the limitation period of 12 years from the date of determination of tenancy, as prescribed under Article 67 o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
