Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N.Pathak, J.
Amir Hassan (Munna Tailor) - Appellant
Versus
Chanda Devi & Ors. - Respondent
S.A.No.18 of 2014
Decided On : 13-08-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K.Das, Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate.
Headnote:
Company’s Act, 1956 - Jharkhand Building and Lease Rent & Eviction Control Act, 2000 - Section 280 - sub-section (1) - Section 233- Section 262 – Code of Civile Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - sub-Section (5) - Section 11(1) - Brief facts of case is that suit premises belongs to plaintiff Co. and building property in which its situates suit premises and other property belonging to plaintiff Co. was under proceeded of liquidation in High Court of Calcutta and an official liquidator was appointed by Hon’ble High Court who was incharge of suit premises and other properties belonging to said plaintiff company - Appellant defendant was in unauthorized occupation of suit premises under plaintiff and being tenant unauthorized occupier of suit premises was paying Rs.25/- per month as occupation charges to official liquidator - Pursuant to said order joint special officer, took over assets and properties including suit premises belonging to plaintiff co. from official liquidator - Plaintiff/respondents further alleged that official liquidator by his informed joint Special Officer mentioning in list names of persons who have occupied room/premises unauthorisedly and also O.L. received certain amount from such persons issuing receipts “without prejudice” and as defendant/appellant have been found in occupation/unauthorised possession of shop premises on payment of Rs.25/- per month and paid occupation charges, but thereafter defendant have defaulted in payment of rent/occupation charges from hence plaintiff issued legal notices through his advocates defendant appellant to vacate and give possession but as defendant did not vacate, hence suit is for recovery of possession of suit property from defendant appellant –Held, Evidence being also on record, relationship- which was only dispute raised by defendant without disputing other pleadings about personal necessity of plaintiff or non-payment of arrears of rent by defendant having established, Court are of view that High Court was not correct in entertaining Second Appeal by interfering with finding of fact arrived at by Appellate Court - From perusal of findings of both courts, lower court records oral and documentary evidence, it appears that relationship of landlord and tenant has been established - Defendants were defaulter in payment of rent - Substantial question of law cannot be termed to be a substantial question of law as Trial Court and First Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence concurrently held that there is tenancy between land holder as plaintiff and tenant as a defendant and eviction suit was maintainable if defendant/appellant is defaulter Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.N.Pathak, J.
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd December, 2013 (decree sealed and signed on 10.12.2013) passed by the District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Eviction Appeal No.23 of 2010 whereby the judgment dated 29th September, 2010 passed by the Munsif, Civil Court, Ghatsila in Eviction Suit No.03 of 2008 has been affirmed and the appeal stood dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the suit premises belongs to the plaintiff Co. and the building property in which its situates the suit premises and other property belonging to the plaintiff Co. was under proceeded of liquidation in C.P. No.324/1954 in the High Court of Calcutta (Kolkata) under the Company’s Act and an official liquidator was appointed by the Hon’ble High Court who was incharge of the suit premises and other properties belonging to the said plaintiff company. The appellant defendant was in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises under the plaintiff and being tenant unauthorized occupier of the suit premises was paying Rs.25/- per month as occupation charges to the official liquidator. Pursuant to the said order dated 06.04.2006 the joint special officer, Sri Krishna Murari Bakrewalla and Ratan Lal Bakrewal took over the assets and properties including the suit premises on 29.04.2006 belonging to the plaintiff co. from the official liquidator. The plaintiff/respondents further alleged that the official liquidator by his letter No. CL-2004/Misc./6008/G dt. 28.12.2006 informed the joint Special Officer mentioning in the list the names of the persons who have occupied the room/premises unauthorisedly and also the O.L. received certain amount from such persons issuing receipts “without prejudice” and as the defendant/appellant have been found in the occupation/unauthorised possession of the shop premises (suit property) on payment of Rs.25/- per month and paid occupation charges upto July, 2003, but thereafter the defendant have defaulted in payment of rent/occupation charges from August, 2003 hence the plaintiff issued legal notices through his advocates dated 10.05.2006 and 19.03.2007 to the defendant appellant to vacate and give possession within 10.4.2007 but as the defendant did not vacate, hence the suit is for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant appellant.
3. The Trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication of this case:
i. Is this suit maintainable as framed ?
ii. Is this suit is maintainable in accordance with Jharkhand Building Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act ?
iii. Whether the valuation of suit land is correct ?
iv. Whether plaintiff and defendant is related as owner of tenant ?
v. Whether this suit is barred by law of limitation adverse possession ?
vi. Whether this suit is barred by non-joinder of necessary party ?
vii. Whether defendant is defaulter to pay rent in this premises ?
viii. Whether plaintiff entitled to relief as he claimed ?
4. The First Appellate Court after hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records and the documents and the evidences and findings of the Trial Court was of the view that the point to be considered before the First Appellate Court was whether findings of the Trial Court should be upheld or set aside.
5. It was the main contention of the defendants before the First Appellate Court that lower court on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties framed eight issues and after going through the records, documentary evidences and hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent vide judgment dated 29.09.2010 in Eviction Suit No.03/2008. It was further contended that the lower court ought not to have placed reliance on the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses who were not at all trustworthy witnesses and as such ought not to have placed reliance on the defendant’s witnesses who are all reliable and trustworthy witness. It was further contended that the learned lower court has wrongly decided the i
