The court affirmed the validity of a lease agreement and outlined that the burden of proof for its alleged forgery lies with the disputing party, establishing principles of contract law related to damages for breach.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the defendants against a confirming judgment. The judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in RFA No.10 of 2024 on 23.12.2024 followed by decree in confirming the judgment passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (L.R. & L.T.V.), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.678 of 2021 on 20.12.2023 followed by decree, is impugned.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff’s case, briefly stated, is that her husband (proforma defendant No.6) is the rightful owner of the schedule land and the building standing thereon. The plaintiff took the suit land from her husband on an oral understanding to run a hotel business in the name and style of ‘Hotel Lavender’. She resided in the top floor of the building with her family and also ran a marriage mandap in a portion thereof. The defendant Nos.2 to 5 approached the plaintiff and her husband for hiring the suit land on monthly rent basis, to which they agreed. Accordingly, a tenancy agreement was executed between the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.10.2019 wherein, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- excluding 18% GST. The defendants ran the hotel but did not pay the agreed monthly rent. On the contrary, the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 threatened the plaintiff and her husband with dire consequences. Defendant No.4 filed a suit being C.S. No.1238 of 2020, in which the plaintiff, after appearing pursuant to summons found that defendant Nos.2 and 4 had manufactured a fake and fraudulent lease agreement dated 02.09.2019 by taking signatures of the plaintiff and her husband forcefully with the monthly rent being fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiff issued notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act for non-payment of monthly rent to defendant Nos.1 to 3 asking them to vacate the suit premises and to clear the outstanding arrear rent of Rs. 49,84,000/- by 30.12.2020 along with damages of Rs.50,000/- per day. Since the defendants did not comply, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction, realization of arrear rent and damages etc.

3.1 Defendant numbers 2 to 4 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. It was stated that they being partners of M/s. Village Inn, entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff and her husband on 02.09.2019 and thus, the commercial operation of the hotel came to their hands for a period of 5 years. As per the agreement, the defendants paid Rs.24,00,000/- as an interest free refundable security deposit and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/. The above amounts being paid, the plaintiff and her husband delivered possession of the property to them. The defendant firm invested Rs.80,00,000/- for development of the hotel and started its operation since October 2019 and has been paying rent regularly without any default. It is further stated that because of COVID-19 pandemic, the hotel business came to a halt for which they were unable to pay the monthly rent from April, 2020 to August, 2020 for which the plaintiff and her husband threatened the defendants to vacate the suit premises. Finding no other way, the defendants filed a complaint case being ICC Case No. 3049 of 2020 against the plaintiff and her husband. It is further stated that the plaintiff and her husband were collecting regular monthly rent from the defendants but they tried to evict them from the suit premises without following the due process of law.

3.2 On such rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination:

“(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the