Page 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RSA No.320 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.19 of 2012 confirming the judgment and

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

Civil Suit No. 132 of 2004.

----

Kumari Vijay Laxmi 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.19 of 2012.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellant under

section 96 of the Code has dismissed.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 8

The present Appellant being the Plaintiff having lost before the

Trial Court and thus being non-suited had filed the First Appeal under

section 96 of the Code. The same having 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 she 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 her 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. So

based upon that and in consonance with the extent of purchase, the

Plaintiff claimed that with effect from 25.8.2000, she is entitled to get a

sum of Rs.3066/- per month towards the monthly rent. The Defendants

however did not pay the same. So she 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

// 3 //

Page 3 of 8

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. It is stated that the Defendants had

agreed to enhnace 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