Jharkhand High Court
Kishore @ Nand Kishore Prasad ... vs Geeta Devi ... Plaintiff/ on 20 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 280 of 2019
Kishore @ Nand Kishore Prasad Barnwal ... Defendant/Appellant
VERSUS-
Geeta Devi ... Plaintiff/ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
For the Appellant : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents :
04/20.10.2022 The instant Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated
24.07.2019 and decree dated 05.08.2019 passed by Learned District Judge-II,
Koderma in Civil Appeal No.13 of 2018, whereby the appeal has been
dismissed and the judgment dated 31.03.2018 and decree dated 13.04.2018
passed by learned Additional Munsif-II, Koderma in Eviction Suit
No.01/2013 has been upheld.
2. Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the defendant/appellant submits that findings of the Courts below are perverse
on the ground that the learned Court below have not considered the fact that
the appellant has regularly paid the rent but receipt has not been given to the
appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant formulated substantial question
of law that the Courts below have failed to consider the oral evidence adduce
on behalf of the appellant in its true prospective and as such, findings are
perverse.
3. I have heard counsel for the appellant on the point of admission
and formulating substantial question of law. After hearing learned counsel for
the appellants upto a length and on perusal of findings of fact recorded
concurrently by the courts below, I find that the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that
learned Court below has categorically held that ' the plaintiff /respondent has
able to establish in this case that the appellant/ defendant has not paid rent of
the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff for the specified period, therefore,
he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises under Section 11(1)(d) of
Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000. Therefore,
the substantial question of law as formulated by learned counsel cannot be
accepted as a substantial question of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Girja Nandini Devi Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury reported in AIR 1967
SC 1124 has held as under:
"It is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence either to restate the effect of
the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court.
Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court
decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice."
4. The grounds taken by the appellant as mentioned in the memo of
appeal and argued by learned counsel for the appellants is not sustainable. The
first appellate court dismissed the appeal affirming the Judgment and decree
passed by the trial court. There is concurrent findings of both the Courts.
5. In the circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law
to be framed. This Second Appeal is devoid of any merits and, therefore, the
same stands dismissed at the stage of 'Admission' itself.
6. As a sequel of aforesaid, pending Interlocutory Applications also
stand dismissed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Punit/-
