(A) Shrimati Bharti Pradhan vs Monasi Bhatra
2022 Latest Caselaw 4308 Chatt

                                                                                                 NAFR
                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   First Appeal No.63 of 2018

           1A.    Shrimati Bharti Pradhan, Wife of Late Surendra Pradhan, aged
                  about 48 years,
           1B.    Suryansh Pradhan, S/o Late Surendra Pradhan, aged about 19
                  years,
           1C.    Kumari Surili Pradhan, Daughter of Late Surendra Pradhan, aged
                  about 15 years through natural guardian mother Smt. Bharti
                  Pradhan, wife of Late Surendra Pradhan,
                  All Residents of Lalbagh, Near Nehru Manch, Jagdalpur, District
                  Bastar, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                      --- Appellants
                                                   versus
                  Monasi Bhatra, Daughter of Late Vinod Batra, Original Resident
                  of Mission Compound, Navrangpur, Orissa, At present resident of
                  Near Janpad Panchayat, Main Road, Adawal, Jagdalpur, District
                  Bastar, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                    --- Respondent

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants : Shri Sunil Otwani with Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocates For Respondent : Shri Vikash Shrivastava, Advocate

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Judgment on Board 8.7.2022

1. The Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the instant appeal against

the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017 passed by the 3 rd

Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.8A of

2015, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the suit.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit house is situated

over the land bearing Khasra No.204/19 situated in Village Adawal,

Jagdalpur. The suit property originally belonged to Indu Pradhan,

who was mother-in-law of Appellant 1A and grandmother of

Appellants 1B and 1C. Subsequently, after death of Indu Pradhan

and her son Surendra Pradhan, names of the present Appellants

have been mutated in the revenue records. Original plaintiff

Surendra Pradhan filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.8A of 2015

against Respondent/defendant Monasi Bhatra for eviction of the

suit house and arrears of rent as also for vacant possession. It was

pleaded by plaintiff Surendra Pradhan that he rented the suit house

to defendant Monasi Bhatra on 20.5.1999 by way of an agreement

(Ex.P1). As per the terms of the said agreement, the defendant

was to pay rent @ Rs.400 per month and each year the rent was to

be increased by 8%. From March, 2006, the defendant stopped

making payment of the rent. She also cut 4 trees of nilgiri situated

in the suit premises without permission of the plaintiff, which

caused a damage of Rs.12,500 to the plaintiff. On 30.3.2010, the

plaintiff sent a registered notice to the defendant demanding

Rs.37,451 as arrears of rent and demanding Rs.12,500 as

damages against cutting of the trees of nilgiri, total for Rs.49,951.

The defendant issued a cheque of Rs.49,951 to the plaintiff which

was subsequently dishonoured. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a

complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act in which the Respondent/defendant was convicted by the Trial

Court. An appeal was preferred before the Court of Session in

which a compromise was effected on 22.2.2015 between the

parties and all the dues were paid by the Respondent/defendant to

the plaintiff from March, 2006 to March, 2010. At that time, the

Respondent/defendant also promised that from now onwards she

shall be paying the rent regularly and timely. When the

Respondent/defendant again failed to pay the rent in the year 2015

then the plaintiff again sent a notice demanding arrears of rent of

Rs.68,406 which was for the period from April, 2010 to January,

2015 and also demanded vacant possession of the suit premises.

But, even thereafter, the Respondent/defendant neither paid the

arrears of rent nor vacated the suit premises. Then the plaintiff filed

the civil suit. After service of notice, the Respondent/defendant

neither appeared nor did file written statement before the Trial

Court. The Trial Court proceeded ex parte against the Respondent/

defendant. After recording of evidence of the plaintiff, vide the

impugned judgment dated 11.10.2017, the Trial Court dismissed

the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the

continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties and also failed to prove that any rent was due to be paid by

the defendant. Hence, this appeal by the Appellants/plaintiffs.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/plaintiffs submits

that the criminal case was only pertaining to dishonour of cheque

issued for payment of arrears of rent for the period from March,

2006 to March, 2010. Therefore, at the time of submission of

compromise application, there was no need to mention that the

arrears of rent for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 was

also due. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court in this regard is

not in accordance with the provisions of law. He further submits

that from perusal of the agreement (Ex.P1), it is well established

that the Respondent/defendant was the tenant of the suit house. In

this regard, specific pleading was also made by the original plaintiff

and his deposition is also not rebutted by the defendant. Therefore,

the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove

continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties is also not in accordance with the evidence adduced before

the Trial Court. The Trial Court completely failed to consider the

settled provisions of law that once the title of the plaintiff is proved,

the reasonable and logical conclusion would be that the other party

is a tenant, trespasser or licensee. Therefore, even if landlord-

tenant relationship is not proved then also a decree of eviction can

be granted in favour of the plaintiffs, now, who are the title holders

of the suit house. Lastly, it is submitted that in the circumstances of

the case and oral and documentary evidence available on record,

the findings of the Court below are perverse and deserve to be set

aside.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/defendant opposes

the arguments raised on behalf of the Appellants/plaintiffs and

submits that there is nothing on record to establish that the suit

house is situated on the land bearing Khasra No.204/19. Virtually,

the Respondent/defendant possesses the land bearing Khasra

No.204/79 which she got in patta. Therefore, the Court below has

rightly dismissed the civil suit.

5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the record of the Trial Court with due care.

6. It is not in dispute that before the Trial Court, the

Respondent/defendant, after service of notice, did not appear and

ex parte proceeding was done against her. From the pleadings of

the original plaintiff and from perusal of the agreement (Ex.P1), it is

well established that on 20.5.1999, the agreement was executed

between original plaintiff Surendra Pradhan and the

Respondent/defendant. In the said agreement, it is mentioned that

the suit house is situated over the land bearing Khasra No.204/19.

The statement of Bharti Pradhan, wife of deceased plaintiff

Surendra Pradhan has also not been rebutted by the defendant.

Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is well established

that the house in question was situated over the land bearing

Khasra No.204/19 which the defendant had taken on rent.

Therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties is duly established. There is also no dispute on the point

that the original plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant for

payment of Rs.49,951 against arrears of rent for the period from

March, 2006 to March, 2010 and for the damages against cutting

of 4 trees of nilgiri. There is also no dispute on the point that the

defendant had given the plaintiff a cheque for the amount of

Rs.49,951 but the said cheque had dishonoured. Thereafter, a

criminal complaint case was filed by the plaintiff against the

defendant and the defendant was convicted for the offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, an

appeal was preferred by the Respondent/defendant and in the said

appeal a compromise took place between both the parties.

7. Before the Court below, the plaintiff witness Bharti Pradhan, in

paragraph 13 of her affidavit submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 of

the Code of Civil Procedure categorically deposed that a notice was

sent to the defendant for demand of Rs.68,406 against the arrears

of rent for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 and for

vacant possession of the suit property. Despite that, the defendant

neither paid the arrears of rent nor did she vacate the suit

premises. The above statement of Bharti Pradhan is not rebutted

by the defendant. Looking to the unrebutted statement of Bharti

Pradhan that a sum of Rs.68,406 was due against the defendant

for arrears of rent for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015

and a relationship of landlord and tenant was continued between

both the parties, the finding of the Trial Court that there was no

continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the

plaintiff and the defendant is against the evidence available on

record.

8. The Trial Court dismissed the suit also on the ground that at the

time of compromise between the parties on 22.2.2015, in the

compromise application (Ex.P12) it was not mentioned that the

arrears of rent for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 was

due, but this finding of the Court below is not in accordance with

law because undisputedly this compromise took place in the

aforesaid case of dishonour of the cheque amounting to Rs.49,951.

In paragraph 3(A) of the compromise application (Ex.P12), it is

clearly mentioned that the cheque for Rs.49,951 given by the

defendant to the plaintiff was for the arrears of house rent for the

period prior to 5.4.2010. Therefore, at the time of drafting of the

application for compromise, it was not required nor was needed to

mention that the arrears of rent for the period from 2010 to 2015

was also due. Therefore, the finding of the Court below in this

regard is also not in accordance with law and the evidence

available on record.

9. Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment

and decree dated 11.10.2017 is set aside. The

Respondent/defendant is directed to vacate the suit premises and

hand over its vacant possession to the Appellants. She shall also

pay the Appellants the arrears of house rent of Rs.68,406 due for

the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 within a period of three

months from the date of the decree of this judgment, failing which,

she shall also be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum

from today till final payment. She shall also pay the Appellants

future mesne profits @ Rs.800 per month from the date of the Trial

Court's decree, i.e., 11.10.2017 till the date of handing over vacant

possession of the suit premises to the Appellants.

10. A decree be drawn up accordingly.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Gopal