Jharkhand High Court

Debashish Chandra Aged About 67 Years ... vs Ved Prasad Jindal Son Of Late Santosh ... on 1 August, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    S.A. No.256 of 2019
                                         ------

(Against the judgment dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No.160 of 2018)

------

Debashish Chandra aged about 67 years son of late Nirmal Kumar Chandra, resident of Park Market, Hirapur, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad .... .... .... Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant.

Versus Ved Prasad Jindal son of late Santosh Prasad Jindal, Jindal Emporium, Park Market, Hirapur, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad .... .... .... Defendant/Respondent/Respondent

------

           For the Appellant                : Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, Advocate
                                              Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate
                                            ------
                                          PRESENT
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                            ------

By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dated

03.05.2019 passed by learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal

No.160 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has

dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No.43

of 2009 dated 11.09.2018.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff/appellant filed Title

(Eviction) Suit No.43 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division-I,

Dhanbad. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner of

the suit premises. He inducted the defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of

Rs.300/- payable in the first week of each succeeding English Calendar month.

The defendant paid rent up to January, 2004 but thereafter failed to pay the

rent. The plaintiff sent advocate's notice but the defendant claimed that he has

remitted the rent to the plaintiff through money order.

4. The defendant in his written statement challenged the maintainability of

the suit on various technical grounds and claimed that the defendant has paid

up-to-date rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not issue rent receipt to the

defendant for non-availability of printed rent receipts. On 07.04.2004, the

defendant approached the plaintiff to receive the rent but the plaintiff did not

receive the same. On 30.05.2004, the defendant went to pay the rent but the

plaintiff demanded enhanced monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The defendant

remitted the monthly rent by money orders. The plaintiff refused to accept the

same. The defendant pleaded that he was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent

of Rs.60/- but the plaintiff gradually enhanced the same from time-to-time and

ultimately compelled the defendant to pay the monthly rent of Rs.300/-.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court

framed the following six issues:-

(I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? (III) Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent of suit premises? (IV) Whether the plaintiff has bonafide need for their own purposes of the suit property?

(V) Whether the partial eviction of defendant from the suit premises can satisfy the need of plaintiff?

(VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as claimed?

6. In support of his case, the plaintiff altogether examined two witnesses

and proved the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. 2. From

the side of the defendants, five witnesses have been examined besides proving

the documents which have been marked Ext. A series to Ext. E.

7. The learned trial court first took up issue No.(III) and after considering

the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plea of the plaintiff

that the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent from February, 2004

cannot be accepted and decided the issue against the plaintiff.

8. The learned trial court next took up issue Nos.(IV) and (V) together and

after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the

plaintiff failed to prove his bonafide requirement (Personal necessity) of the

suit premises and decided the said issued against the plaintiff.

9. The learned trial court thereafter took up the issue No.(II) and came to

the conclusion that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action to institute the

suit.

10. In answer to the issue No.(I) next taken up by the learned trial court, the

learned trial court came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable in its

present form.

11. Lastly, the learned trial court took up the issue No.(VI) and held that the

plaintiff is not entitled for any relief/reliefs as claimed for and dismissed the

suit.

12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial

court being Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit

No.43 of 2009, the appellant/plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.160 of 2018 in

the court Principal District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and

disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment as

already indicated above.

13. The learned first appellate settled the following two points for

determination:-

"Point No. 1. Whether the defendant/respondent is defaulter for payment of rent of the suit property since February, 2004 and thereafter?

Point No. 2. Is the Plaintiff/Appellant entitled for decree of eviction against the defendant for the suit property?

14. The learned first appellate court took up the points for determination

Nos.1 and 2 together and after making independent appreciation of the

evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has miserably

failed to prove that the defendant is defaulter of payment of rent of two

months i.e, February, 2004 onwards and decided both the points for

determination against the plaintiff/appellant and dismissed the appeal.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below

have committed perversity by not properly appreciating the evidence in the

record and mechanically dismissed the suit and appeal respectively and failed

to appreciate the fact that the defendant has failed to pay the rent from

February, 2004 onwards. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree

of both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed

after formulating appropriate substantial question of law.

16. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants

and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to

mention here that it is a settled principle of law that perversity, so far as it

relates to interfering with the findings of fact by exercise of the jurisdiction

under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is that if a finding of

fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking

into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding, so outrageously

defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of

being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law or if the

finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly

unreliable or the evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity

or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those

findings then the findings may be said to be perverse, as has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee,

Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others reported in (2010) 13

SCC 216 para-28 of which reads as under :-

"28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non- application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [(2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685]."

and the same has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs R.Vijaya Renganathan &

Others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 483 and which has also been reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others

vs. H. Narasimha Reddy reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 694.

17. Now, coming to the facts of the case, this Court finds that both the courts

below have made threadbare discussion of the evidence in the record and after

appreciation of the evidence in the record as per law, without considering any

evidence which is inadmissible or ignoring the evidence which was admissible,

has arrived at reasonable conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish that the

defendant defaulted in payment of rent and before the appellate court, the

plaintiff did not agitate the findings of the trial court regarding personal