Back
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Debashish Chandra S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Ved Prasad Jindal S/o Late Santosh Prasad Jindal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 2009 dated 11.09.2018.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff/appellant filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Dhanbad. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. He inducted the defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- payable in the first week of each succeeding English Calendar month. The defendant paid rent up to January, 2004 but thereafter failed to pay the rent. The plaintiff sent advocate’s notice but the defendant claimed that he has remitted the rent to the plaintiff through money order.
4. The defendant in his written statement chal
The court upheld the dismissal of the eviction suit, finding no evidence of rent default by the defendant, and ruled that the appeal raised no substantial question of law.
The court upheld the eviction based on the defendant's default in rent and the plaintiff's bona fide need for the premises under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or irrational.
The tenant's eviction was justified based on the landlord's bona fide need under the Jharkhand Building Act, despite tenant's claims of hardship.
A tenant becomes a defaulter under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, if rent is not paid for two consecutive months, thus justifying eviction.
The case established the importance of evidence in establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the liability for non-payment of rent under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Co....
Point of law: “Any aggrieved party” the expression employed in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proce....
Point of law: In terms with the Act of 1972, the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court under Section 8 of the said Act is the final authority in the matter and the scope of revisional jurisdictio....
The power of attorney's lack of formal exhibition does not invalidate a suit initiated by its holder if inferential authority is established, and the tenant's non-payment of charges warrants eviction....
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
