Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Anand Kumar Sonkar son of late Babulal Sonkar - Appellant
Versus
Binita Singh, wife of late Rajendra Singh - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 111 of 2024
Decided On : 09-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Ms. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate
The confirmation of a landlord-tenant relationship and the justification for eviction based on rent default and personal necessity were upheld by the court.
Headnote:(A) Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 - Tenancy - Eviction suit - The courts held there was a valid landlord-tenant relationship; defendants defaulted in rent payment. The plaintiffs established personal necessity and need for eviction of defendants. (Paras 7, 18, 20)
(B) Evidence - The court observed that the defendants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of forgery of rent receipts. Despite claiming state ownership, no evidence corroborated this assertion. (Paras 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contested an eviction suit, asserting no landlord-tenant relationship. The suit premises were claimed by plaintiffs as necessary for personal use and business. Defendants failed to pay rent since March 2013 and disputed ownership. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found the plaintiffs to be landlords with a valid tenancy following the evidence presented, including rent receipts. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decision. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: The main issues concerned landlord-tenant relationship, payment default, and grounds for eviction based on personal necessity.. (Paras 2, 11, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists based on preponderance of evidence, establishing both default in rent payments and personal necessity for eviction. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of landlord-tenant relationship (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. disputed ownership and title claims (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. evidence presented and witness testimonies (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. assessment of personal necessity by court (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. final judgment reasoning and eviction order (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal and communication of order (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2024 (decree signed on 13.06.2024) passed by the learned District Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2023 whereby the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The Trial Court’s judgment was passed vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2022 (decree signed on 06.01.2023) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) IV, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit Case No. 12 of 2014 whereby the suit for eviction on account of default in payment of rent and personal necessity has been decreed. The defendant having lost in both the courts is the appellant before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that the relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties was specifically denied and the finding in connection with the relationship of land lord and tenant is perverse and accordingly a substantial question of law be framed. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though rent receipts being exhibit number 1 to ¼ were exhibited but the defendant had disputed the signature on the same by stating that they were forged and fabricated document and asserted that they were neither tenant of the plaintiffs nor paid any rent. She submits that the learned Trial Court has relied upon exhibit 3 and exhibit 7 to ultimately hold that the original defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff no. 1 claimed to be the absolute owner of the sweet shop and the plaintiff no. 2 is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff no. 1 as well as agent of plaintiff no. 1 who claimed to have been collecting rent. She submits that the property belongs to State Government and not to the plaintiffs and therefore there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
5. The learned counsel submits that as per the Khatiyan, the property was recorded in the name of Raja Jagdish Chandra Dev Dhawaldev and by virtue of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the property was vested with the State and therefore the plaintiffs cannot be said to have title over the property.
6. However, during the course of argument, upon query of this court, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the defendants are also not claiming title over the property but are claiming possessory right by stating that defendants are in possession of the property for more than 80 years. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as point of personal necessity is concerned, the same was not properly examined by the court in as much as it has come in evidence that the son of plaintiff for whom the plea of personal necessity was raised, was working as a contractor in Bokaro and was earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this court finds that the specific case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff no. 1 was the owner of the suit property which is a shop and plaintiff no. 2 being the brother-in-law and agent of plaintiff no. 1 used to collect rent. The specific case was that the defendant is a tenant in the suit property and the rent was payable on monthly basis @ Rs. 450/- per month besides electricity and other charges. The tenancy month was to be calculated from the 1st day of English calendar month and the rent was payable by the end of the tenancy month i.e. on the
