The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing an appeal filed against the decree of eviction passed on 10.07.2013 against the appellant by the Learned Judge of City Civil Court, held that the case of the respondent as a plaintiff cannot fail only because no notice was issued to the appellant for production of the original.
Brief Facts:
The main challenge to the decree of eviction passed on 10.07.2013 against the appellant by the Learned Judge of City Civil Court is that the appellant was a tenant under the respondent, and further, not the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, will have application in the case.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the original deed of lease was not marked as exhibit nor any notice was issued upon the competent authority for the production of the same during the trial. The learned counsel contended that there are documents in the proceedings where it would appear that the appellant was all along willing to renew the lease but due to sheer non-cooperation from the side of the respondent, the same could not be done.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that it is the appellant who is the custodian of the original lease deed, and not the respondent. Furthermore, a copy of the lease deed authenticated by the officer of the appellant has been produced from the side of the respondent. No objection was taken at the time of marking the same as an exhibit, and, during the appeal, the appellant is taking a new plea which was never argued at the time of final hearing before the trial court.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the appellate court can interfere with the judgment of the trial court only when it is materially defective and non-interference by the higher court would perpetrate gross injustice to the concerned party. The appellate court cannot alter the judgment of the trial court or substitute its view, only because another view is possible. The appellant was unable to explain why the views expressed by the learned Trial Judge in dealing with the said case laws are not sustainable.
The Court observed that no notice was served upon the appellant for the production of the original lease deed, but a copy of such deed, authenticated by an officer of the appellant, was produced before the learned court. There was no allegation regarding the contents of the said certified copy of the lease deed. Therefore, when the document is admitted, and contents thereof were not challenged from the side of the appellant who, incidentally produced the said certified copy, the case of the respondent as a plaintiff cannot fail only because no notice was issued to the appellant for production of the original. If there was anything new to bring on record before the trial court, nothing prevented the appellant from producing the original lease deed, particularly when the same was in the custody of the appellant. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant for non-production of the original deed in the factual scenario of the case.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Case Title: UOI & Ors. vs. The Kusum Commercial Co. Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee and Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
Case No.: F.A.T. 16 of 2014
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
