JUDGMENT :

(Through : Video Conferencing)

1. Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha assisted by learned counsels for the appellant, Mr. Pratiush Lala and Mr. Sandeep Verma.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.06.2007 and decree signed on 27.06.2007 passed by Additional District Judge-13th, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 47 / 2005, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant / plaintiff has been allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 11.02.2005 and decree signed on 25.02.2005 passed by Subordinate Judge-Ist, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 08 / 2000.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C., as the appellant / respondent / defendant has not filed any written statement, on the basis of evidence brought on record. Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. reads as under:

10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.-Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit, and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment passed by the lower appellate court is perverse and contrary to the record and judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Others Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352 (para-11.3). Para-11.3 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-

11.3 Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned lower appellate court has passed the judgment setting aside the judgment passed by the learned trial court, under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 5 C.P.C., which reads as follows:-

5. Specific denial.-(1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability :

Provided that the Court may in it discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.

(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.

(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.

(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Balraj Taneja & Another Vs. Sunil Madan & Another reported in (1999) 8 SCC 396. Para-26, 27 & 29 of the aforesaid are re-produced below:

26. The Proviso to this Section specifically gives a discretion to the Court to require the facts ad