Prakash Chand Sharma Died Through ... vs Viond Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 1123 Chatt

                                   1

                                                                 NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                   Second Appeal No. 247 of 2012

   1. Prakash Chand Sharma (died) through LRs. :­

     A. Smt. Shakuntala Devi Sharma, Wd/o Late Prakash
     Chand Sharma, Aged about 52 years.

     B. Radha Krishna Sharma S/o Late Prakash Chand
     Sharma, Aged about 34 years.

     C. Yogesh Sharma S/o Late Prakash Chand Sharma,
     Aged about 32 years.

     D. Saroj Sharma D/o Prakash Chand Sharma, Aged
     about 36 years.

     All     R/o   Near   Kotra    Road,     Raigarh,   Tahsil   and
     Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

                                           ­­­Appellant/Defendant

                                  Versus

     Vinod Sharma S/o Dhanraj Sharma, Aged about 40
     years, Occupation Private Service, R/o House No.
     2,    Seth    Kirodimal   Colony,       Raigarh,   Tahsil   and
     Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

                                       ­­­ Respondent/Plaintiff

For Appellant :­ Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent :­ Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board (Through Video Conferencing) 14/07/2021

1. This second appeal preferred by the

appellant/defendant was admitted for hearing on

18/04/2017 by formulating the following

substantial question of law :­

"Whether the Courts below, while considering the documentary evidence Ex.P.11, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14, were justified in holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant has duly been established between the parties and consequently justified in granting the decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties will

hereinafter be referred to as per their status

and ranking given in the plaint before the trial

Court.]

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears

of rent against the defendant stating inter alia

that the suit accommodation shown in Schedule

'A' annexed with the plaint was let out by him

to the defendant for a monthly rent of Rs. 150/­

commencing from the first date of calender month

and ending on the last date of that month, but

the defendant stopped paying rent from June,

1998 and moreover, the suit accommodation is

required by the plaintiff for residing as he has

no other alternative accommodation in the

township of Raigarh and tenancy of defendant has

been terminated by serving notice dated

07/04/2001 with effect from 22/04/2001, yet the

defendant has not vacated the suit premises

which has led to filing of the suit for eviction

based on Section 12(1)(e) of Chhattisgarh

Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the

act of 1961') and for arrears of rent from June,

1998 to May, 2001 amounting to Rs. 5,100/­.

3. Defendant filed his written statement denying

the plaint allegations stating inter alia that

the suit accommodation has been constructed on

Khasra No. 194/2 area 0.010 hectare at the time

of his ancestors and defendant and his brother

Kashiram Sharma, both are staying in the suit

accommodation separately for a fairly long time

and plaintiff has no right or title over the

suit accommodation and there is no relationship

of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and

himself. Defendant also filed a counter­claim

seeking permanent injunction restraining the

plaintiff from interfering with his peaceful

possession.

4. Plaintiff filed written statement to the

counter­claim and denied the allegations made by

the defendant and stated that plaintiff is the

title­holder and landlord and defendant is his

tenant, as such, defendant is not entitled for

relief of permanent injunction.

5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned

trial Court, framed as many as 10 issues and

recorded the evidence of the parties to decide

those issues. It is appropriate to notice here

that by interim order dated 23/08/2003, trial

Court struck off the defence of the defendant on

the ground that he failed to deposit rent in

accordance with the provisions of the Act of

1961 and further by its judgment and decree

dated 14/03/2011 dismissed the counter­claim of

defendant and decreed the suit partly holding

that defendant is tenant of plaintiff for a

monthly rent of Rs. 150/­ and the suit

accommodation is required by the plaintiff for

his bona fide need as he has no other

alternative accommodation in the township of

Raigarh, but declined to grant decree under

Section 12(1)(a) or 12(1)(e) of the Act of 1961.

6. On appeal being preferred by the defendant

against the decree for eviction passed by the

trial Court in favour of plaintiff, learned

first appellate Court, by its impugned judgment

and decree dated 06/07/2012, affirmed the

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court

against which this second appeal has been

preferred by the appellant/defendant in which

substantial question of law has been framed and

set out in the opening paragraph of this

judgment.

7. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant, would submit that the

finding recorded by both the Courts below

particularly holding that the relationship of

landlord and tenant has been established between

plaintiff and defendant on the basis of Exhibits

P­11, P­13 and P­14 is perverse and is liable to

be set aside and the instant appeal deserves to

be allowed.

8. Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff, would support the impugned

judgment and decree and submit that both the

Courts below, on the basis of proper evaluation

of oral and documentary evidence on record, have

rightly come to the conclusion that the

relationship of landlord and tenant has been

established between plaintiff and defendant and

decreed the suit of the plaintiff, as such, the

instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­

above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

10. It is pertinent to mention here that trial Court

has granted decree in favour of plaintiff

holding that plaintiff is the title­holder of

the suit accommodation and he is the landlord

and defendant is his tenant, as such, the

relationship of landlord and tenant has been

established between them and also that the suit

accommodation is required bona fidely by the

plaintiff for residence as he has no other

alternative accommodation in the township of

Raigarh. The trial Court has also struck off the

defence of the defendant by order dated

23/08/2003.

11. The finding recorded by both the Courts below

that plaintiff needs the suit accommodation for

his bona fide under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act

of 1961 cannot be called in question in this

second appeal as defence of defendant was struck

off under Section 13(6) of the Act on 23­8­2003

and the only question that can be examined is

whether the relationship of landlord and tenant

is established between plaintiff and defendant

in light of Exhibits P­11, P­13 and P­14.

12. A careful perusal of Exhibit P­11 would show

that it is a memo issued by the plaintiff to the

Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity

Board raising objection to the electric

connection to be given to the defendant in which

plaintiff has clearly stated that defendant is

in illegal possession of the suit accommodation

for which matter is pending before the Court and

the electric connection has already been

disconnected once due to non­payment of

electricity bill, therefore, without the consent

of the plaintiff/landlord, electric connection

be not reconnected. By this document the

plaintiff has though said that defendant is in

illegal possession of the suit accommodation but

he has clearly asserted that he is the landlord,

therefore, this document cannot be said to be a

document which clearly supports the case of the

plaintiff that defendant is his tenant.

13. Exhibit P­13 is a copy of istegasa filed in the

Court of Executive Magistrate, Raigarh at the

instance of plaintiff against defendant who is

wherein it has been stated that defendant is

staying as a tenant in the house of Vinod Sharma

and there is some estrangement between defendant

Prakashchandra Sharma and plaintiff Vinod

Sharma, as such, it is quite vivid that in this

document, the name of defendant Prakashchandra

Sharma is mentioned as tenant, therefore, it

cannot be said that in any way it furthers the

case of the defendant.

14. Exhibit P­14 is the statement of defendant in

which he has clearly stated that he has taken

the suit accommodation from plaintiff's father

on monthly rent of Rs. 125/­ and he has entered

into agreement to sale with regard to the suit

accommodation with plaintiff and his father for

Rs. 28,100/­ but plaintiff's father asked him to

vacate the premises, as such, it is established

that he was tenant of plaintiff's father.

15. Consequently, on the basis of Exhibits P­11,

P­13 and P­14, it cannot be held that defendant

was not the tenant of plaintiff and the

concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts

below on the basis of oral and documentary

evidence on record that defendant is tenant of

plaintiff and the relationship of landlord and

tenant has been established between plaintiff

and defendant is a finding of fact based on

evidence available on record which is neither

perverse nor contrary to the record,

particularly the defence of defendant has also

been struck off by the trial Court by order

dated 23/08/2003, therefore, the trial Court has

rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and it

has rightly been affirmed by the first appellate

Court. I do not find any merit in this second

appeal.

16. The second appeal, being devoid of merits,

deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed

leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

17. Decree be drawn­up accordingly.

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Harneet