Non-compliance of the provision contained in section 80 of the Code is not total to the suit filed by the Plaintiff for realization of arrear rent from Doordarshan Maintenance Centre inducted as a tenant.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rairangpur in R.F.A. No.18 of 2012.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellant under section 96 of the Code has dismissed.

The present Appellant being the Plaintiff having lost before the Trial Court and thus being non-suited had filed the First Appeal which has been dismissed; she is now on Appeal

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. The Plaintiff's case, in short, is that he is the owner of the land and house in question. The Defendants had established one LPT Centre over the suit land having taken the land and house on lease from the original recorded tenant Shiba Narayan Dash. The Plaintiff having purchased the said land, the Defendants have attorned him as to be the lessor. It is stated that the parties had agreed that the Defendants would pay the monthly rent as would be assessed by the Public Works Department (PWD). The Defendants are said to have adopted dilatory tactics to settle the fair rent. However, in the month of March, 2003 fair rent certificate was obtained from the PWD (R&B), Rairangpur which was calculated @ Rs.11,665/- for the entire premises. It is further stated that the Plaintiff, his wife and daughters purchased three parcels of land covering the entire premises and accordingly, rent of Rs.3066/- is payable to Bijoy Laxmi Mohanty, Rs.3733/- is payable to Dr. P.S.c Manikeswari and Rs.4866/- is payable to the Plaintiff. So as per the fair rent certificate, the Plaintiff is entitled to monthly rent of Rs.4866/- from the Defendants. The Defendants however did not pay the same. So he filed the suit for eviction of the Defendants and realization of the rent along with interest pendentilite and future.

4. The Defendant No.1 coming to contest the suit having raised technical objection as to non-joinder of necessary parties and non- compliance of the provision of section 80 of the Code have however admitted that they have been inducted as a tenant over the suit land and building by one Lingaraj Dash from 13.2.1994 on a monthly rent of Rs.3500/-/ It is also stated that the rent was not paid to the Plaintiff because of the dispute as to ownership and monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- paid to Shiba Narayan Dash from 14.2.1994 to 24.8.2000 and rent for the period from 24.8.2000 to 28.2.2002 was paid to Manoranjan Mohanty, Dr. P.S. Manikeswari and Bijoy Laxmi Mohanty. It is stated that the Defendants had agreed to enhance the house rent after obtaining necessary fair rent certificate from the Govt. Authority. The matter had been referred to the Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio Prasar Bharati Board Broadcasting Corporation of India for submission of the fair rent certificate who fixed the rent @ Rs.5000/- per month for the entire premises. The Plaintiff without submitting the bill has filed the suit.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as ten issues. Answering the issue as to the fair rent certificate issued by the PWD, the Trial Court has said that the Plaintiff has failed to prove the fair rent certificate submitted by the Assistant Engineer, PWD (R&B), Rairangpur. The main ground taken here is that for non- examination of the Assistant Engineer, the fair rent certificate submitted by him is not acceptable. The next ground taken is that it having not been shown in evidence that the Plaintiff and the Defendants had sent the request to the Assistant Engineer, PWD for assessment of the fair rent as an arbitrator or a referee, there was no occasion or reason for him to give that fair rent certificate.

Next coming to the other issues touching the quantum of rent as claimed by the Plaintiff, since the suit is based on