Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs Jarao Kueri Trust Represented Through ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 179 of 2016
1(a) Bikash Sharma
2(a) Jyanti Devi
2(b) Amit Kumari Sharma
3(a) Chanda Devi
3(b) Harsh Sharma .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Jarao Kueri Trust represented through its Secretary
2.Brajesh Kumar Sharma .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) :
......
13/ 06.05.2024. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The instant Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed
by learned District Judge-XII, Hazaribagh, in Title (Eviction) Appeal No.6 of
2008.
2. Appellants are the tenants and there is judgment of eviction passed by the learned
Courts below on the ground of default and personal necessity. Aggrieved by the
order passed before the First Appellate Court, the instant Second Appeal has
been filed.
3. The suit- property, as detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint is a part in the building
premises known as Jarao Kueri Trust Panditayani Dharmshala and the same is
known by the said Trust. The suit was filed under Section 11(1)(c)& (d) of the
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 for a decree of
eviction of the appellants/defendants from Schedule A of the premises as well as
for arrears of rent.
4. Schedule A of the suit premises was given to the defendant(s)/appellants on
monthly rent of Rs.65/- per month and the same was payable to the Secretary of
the said Trust in the next following month under a receipt. The defendant(s) paid
monthly rent from the month of July, 1984 to December, 1984 for which the
receipts were issued.
5. The defendant(s) paid monthly rent up-to the month of May, 1990 and since the
June, 1990, they defaulted in making the payment and it was also required for
the purpose of personal necessity.
6. The case of the defendant(s)/ appellant(s) is that there was no relationship of
landlord and tenant with plaintiff no.2. It has been pleaded by the defendant(s)
that he has been paying regular rent. It is also pleaded that plaintiff no.2 has no
title and interest and he is not the bona-fide Secretary of the Trust as according
to the Trust the legal occupant of the vendor of the Trust will have no right and
interest over the trust/ property.
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following main issues were
framed :-
(3). Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiffs and the defendants?
(4) Whether the defendants are defaulter in payment of rent in respect of the
suit premises?
(5) Whether the suit premises is reasonably and in good faith required by the
plaintiff for his personal necessity?
(6) Whether the partial eviction can satisfy the requirement of the plaintiffs?
8. Learned Appellate Court returned a finding of fact in favour of the plaintiff(s)
with respect to all the issues except the issue No.(5).
9. Learned First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of facts with the
learned Trial Court.
10. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) that the issue of
personal necessity was decided in favour of the appellant(s) by the learned
Trial Court, but despite this, the eviction suit was decreed. However, learned
First Appellate Court has not recorded any finding on the issue of personal
necessity.
I do not find any substantial question of law for admitting the instant
Second Appeal which accordingly stands dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
Uploaded.
