Page 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RSA No.319 of 2014

In the matter of an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2014 and

29.01.2014 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Rairangpur in R.F.A. No.18 of 2012 confirming the judgment and

decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rairangpur in

Civil Suit No. 56 of 2006.

----

Monoranjan Mohanty

….

Appellant

-versus-

State Engineer, Doordarshan

Maintenance Centre, Balasore &

Others

….

Respondents

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Appellant

-

Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Sr.Advocate

For Respondents -

M/s. S. Barik, D.K. Mohanty

P.C. Behera,

Advocate for R.1

Mr. M. Ku. Badu

Advocate for R.3

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

Date of Hearing : 10.02.2022 :

Date of Judgment: 14.02.2022

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.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 8

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.

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.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 8

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, A