Jharkhand High Court
Baban Prasad Singh vs Onkar Bhagat on 28 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A No. 273 of 2015
Baban Prasad Singh .... .... Appellant(s).
Versus
Onkar Bhagat .... .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent :
------
11/28.10.2021
Appellant was plaintiff before the trial court. He was also appellant before
the first appellate court. The plaintiff filed a suit for vacating the defendant from
the premises described in Schedule-A of the plaint as he claims to be the landlord
of the premises.
The ground on which an eviction is sought for is personal necessity as the
plaintiff wants to run his own business. The case of the plaintiff is that since notice
was sent requesting for payment of monthly rent on 11.10.2001 but the defendant
even after receipt of the notice failed to pay rent. He neither paid the amount nor
delivered the possession of the premises.
From the records, I find that defendants appeared and filed written
statement. They denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties. It was further pleaded that the suit premises is also not
properly described in the plaint or in the Schedule. It is stated that there was some
vacant land which was squatted and putting tin shed, two shops were prepared
and defendant is occupying one of the shop and paying regular toll tax to TISCO.
The defendant denied his induction as monthly tenant.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the trial
court failed to consider the oral evidence of the parties which suggests that the
plaintiff has inducted the defendant as tenant. He submits that oral evidence was
wrongly appreciated and both the trial court and the appellate court arrived at a
erroneous conclusion that landlord and tenant relationship does not exist between
the parties.
After hearing the parties and after going through both the impugned
judgments, I find that suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant praying for eviction.
Existence of the landlord and tenant relationship, in an eviction suit is a sine-qua.
In absence of finding that there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties, a suit of eviction cannot be decreed. From both the impugned
judgments which are concurrent in nature, I find that the trial court in detail has
discussed the evidence of the parties and arrived at a conclusion that no
relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the appellant and the
respondent.
Be it noted that there is no documentary evidence in support of creation of
tenancy rather the evidence are oral in nature. The Trial court elaborately
discussed the evidence and after considering the same has arrived at a conclusion
that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The
appellate court independently assessed the evidence and thereafter also arrived at
the same conclusion. After going through the judgments, I find that both the courts
below concurrently concluded, after considering the evidence, that there exists no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. From the judgments, I find
that the evidence have been considered and there is no perversity in such
consideration. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties is an absolute question of fact which depends on evidence. Since this
factual aspect has been considered and a concurrent finding has been arrived at
by the courts, that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenants, I find that
no substantial question of law is involved in this case.
In view of the specific finding of both courts that there is no existence of
landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, I find no ground to entertain
this appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.
Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
