Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Namita Bose, W/o late Madan Bose – Appellant
Versus
Satyanarain Prasad Chourasia, Son of late Raghu Ram Barai – Respondent
Second Appeal No.79 of 2017
Decided On : 28-02-2025
(A) Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 - Sections 11(1)
(C) and 14(8) - Eviction Suit - The appellant sought eviction of the tenant on grounds of personal necessity for his sons - The tenant contended the suit was not maintainable and raised various defenses including limitation and waiver - The trial court ruled in favor of the landlord, affirming that the need was bona fide and the tenant's claims were insufficient - The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing the landlord's right to determine the necessity for eviction. (Paras 4-27)
(B) Appeal - The second appeal was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability, as the appropriate remedy was revision under Section 14(8) - The court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless perverse or contrary to law. (Paras 24-28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant inherited property and required the tenanted premises for his sons, one of whom is a practicing lawyer, while the tenant, an elderly woman, argued she would lose her livelihood.
Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate courts found the landlord's need to be genuine and the tenant's defenses were not compelling enough to deny eviction.
Issues: The primary issues were the maintainability of the second appeal and whether the lower courts properly considered the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the landlord's bona fide need was established and the tenant's claims did not justify retaining possession.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.)
This Second Appeal has been assigned by Hon’ble The Chief Justice to this Bench and that is how, this Second Appeal has been listed before this Bench.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. This Second Appeal has been preferred being dissatisfied with the judgment and the decree dated 27.01.2017 and 04.02.2017 respectively passed in Civil Title Appeal No.43 of 2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the learned trial court in Eviction Suit No.01 of 2012 and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial court and the decree dated 18.05.2016 and 28.05.2016 respectively.
4. The case of the plaintiff/ appellant is that grand-father of the plaintiff, namely, Bhatu Ram Barai acquired the land bearing plot no. 4305, 4306, 4307 & 4308 in Mouza Dhanbad, Mouza No. 51 corresponding to Nagar Nigan Holding No. 45/46 more-fully described in schedule ’A’ of the plaint leaving behind his only son, namely, Raghu Ram, who inherited the aforesaid property and came in possession of schedule ’A’ property. Raghu Ram subsequently died leaving behind two sons, namely, Rajendra Prasad Chourasia, Shatyanarain Prasad Chourasia, who inherited the schedule ’A’ property and continued to realize rent from the tenant, who was inducted by landlord as tenant. Subsequently, partition took place between the parties. As per the partition deed dated 08.09.1999 schedule ’A’ property fell in the share of the present plaintiff Satyanarain Prasad and defendant, namely, Namita Bose who was tenant in the said premises, started paying rent @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to the plaintiff. The plaintiff Shatyanarain Prasad Chourasia after partition shifted into tenanted premises belonging to Smt. Savita Devi for monthly rent of Rs. 3,900/-. Now, the plaintiff has two grown up sons Anant Kumar and Rahul Kumar. Anant Kumar is a married and practicing lawyer at Dhanbad and other son Rahul Kumar has also attained adulthood and is to be married. The plaintiff requires schedule-"A" premises for the use of his son, who will reside in the said property and also to open lawyer’s chamber. Partial eviction of the tenanted premises will not fulfill the bonafide need of the plaintiff and his child. Accordingly, the suit has been filed on the ground of personal necessity under section 11 (1)(C) read with section 14 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act,2000. The cause of action for the present suit arose on 6.01.2012 when notice was sent for eviction the suit premises.
5. The case of the defendant/ respondent is that the defendant appeared and filed written statement stating therein that suit was not maintainable in its present form. The plaintiff has no cause of action for the present suit. The suit was barred by law of limitation, waiver, acquiescence and non-joinder of the parties. The relationship of landlord and tenant has not been denied. It has been pleaded that plaintiff has other premises more suitable for his requirement that the present premises. The defendant is an old ailing lady and anyhow managing the business of Bapi Studio with her son and brother in-law from the tenanted premises. She will lose her livelihood if she is asked to evict. It has been admitted that legal notice was sent on different grounds.
6. This Second Appeal has been admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 03.04.2017 and the following substantial question of law have been framed:
(i) Whether the judgment passed by the Learned First Appellate Court is sustainable in the eye of law if passed without considering the evidence of exhibits Ext 13 and without giving finding thereupon on the question of partial eviction in terms of the proviso to section 11(i)(c) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and
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.
The requirement of substantial questions of law and the impact of new tenancy acts on ongoing proceedings must be carefully considered by the court.
The court established that eviction can be granted based on bona fide necessity when the tenant's claim of occupying multiple rooms is not substantiated by evidence.
Second appeals are barred under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, allowing only revisions, as confirmed by the court.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of evidence in supporting claims of personal necessity and highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction in re-assessing evidence.
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
