Jharkhand High Court
Shakuntala Devi vs Marwari Panchayat on 13 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
SECOND APPEAL No. 86 of 2022
----
Shakuntala Devi, Age-72 years W/O Late Girdhari Lal Agarwal, C/O
Sanjay Medical Shop No. 25, Main Road Chas, Dharamshala More, Sri
Laxmi Narayan Market Complex, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-
Bokaro, (Jharkhand) ........... Appellant(s)
-- Versus --
Marwari Panchayat, A society registered under society Registration
Act, 1859, Being registration No. 261/79-80, through its General
Secretary having its office at Bye Pass Road, Chas, Near-Old Bus
Stand Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand)
.......... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellants(s) :- Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) :- Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, Advocate
----
12/13.02.2025 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent.
2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
decree dated 03.09.2021 (Decree sealed and signed on 14.09.2021)
passed by learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Civil Appeal No.
31/2020, whereby the learned appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss
the appeal and affirm the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 (Decree
sealed and signed on 13.01.2020) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.),
Bokaro in Title (Eviction) suit No. 02/2015.
3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in brief is that plaintiff is a
society Registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 having its
Registration No. 261 of 1979-80 and possess 1.75 acres of land comprising
Plot No. 7273, 7274 and 7275 under Khata No. 108, Mouza Chas, P.O.
Chas, Bokaro. In the Northern side of Plot, the plaintiff constructed a
market complex consisting of several shops and rooms on the ground floor
known as Sri Laxmi Narayan Market Complex. One Sudhanshu Pathak
being the manager of the Plaintiff's society use to receive rent and issued
rent receipts to the tenants. It is further case of the respondent/plaintiff
that the plaintiff inducted the husband of the defendant namely Giridhari
Lal Agarwal on monthly rent in respect of one Shop No. 25 described in
Schedule -B of Rs. 325/-(per month) besides the electricity charges and
other charges and the rent is payable on the first week of every succeeding
month according to English Calender. The plaintiff use to issue rent receipt
to the defendant/tenant. It is further case of the plaintiff that Giridhari Lal
Agarwal died about more than a year but the defendant or his heirs had
not informed the plaintiff/ Landlord and after death of Giridhari Lal Agarwal
his wife Shakuntala Devi(Defendant) and his heirs became statutory tenant
and continuing possession of the suit property. The defendant became
irregular in payment of rent for the month of August and September, 2011
which was paid on 25.12.2011 and which the plaintiff has received under
protest and warning to pay the rent in time as such the defendant became
a defaulter for non payment of rent for two months i.e. August and
September. 2011 in time and liable to be evicted from the tenanted
premises. The defendant paid the rent from the month of October &
November, 2011 paid on 16.01.2012, rent for December, 2011 & January,
2012 paid on 15.03.2012, rent for February & March, 2012 paid on
13.05.2012, rent for April & May 2012 paid on 09.07.2012, rent for June
and July, 2012 paid on 19.10.2012, rent for August & September, 2012 paid
on 10.11.2012, rent for October and November, 2012 paid on 18.11.2013,
rent for December 2012 and January, 2013 paid on 14.03.2013, rent for
February & March, 2013 paid on 12.05.2013, rent for April & May 2013 paid
on 20.08.2013 which the plaintiff has received with protest and warning.
Thereafter, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the rent from the
month of June, 2013 to up to date in spite of repeated demand and
request made by the plaintiff. The rent has become due from the month of
June 2013 to Nov. 2014 for 18 months amounting to Rs. 5,850/- and the
defendant is bound to pay to the plaintiff. The plaintiff lastly on 01.12.2014
asked the defendant to quit and vacate the tenant shop and room and pay
the dues rent amount but the defendant neither paid the due rent amount
nor vacated the tenanted shop room. The cause of action firstly arose on
25.12.2011 when the defendant paid the rent for two months i.e. for
August and September, 2011 and on 01.12.2014 when the defendant failed
and neglected to vacate and pay the due rent and from day to day to up to
date.
4. The case of the appellant/defendant is that Defendant Shakuntala
Devi appeared upon summons and filed her written statement in the case.
In her written statement defendant stated that the suit is not maintainable
in the present form, the suit is barred by Law of Limitation, the suit is
barred by the provision of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, and there is no cause of action for the present suit. The suit is
filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for revenge of her personal
matter and also for harassing her. She has further stated that the present
suit is filed by the Secretary of Marwari Panchayat without consent of co-
officials as well as other members of the coordination Committee of the
Society of Marwari Panchayat, Chas, even the defendant is also a member
of the above society. It is admitted that the plaintiff allotted the Shop No.
25 as tenant to the deceased husband of the defendant at monthly rent of
Rs. 325/-. It is further admitted that after the death of Giridhari Lal Agarwal
all the members and other officials of Marwari Panchayat attended his
Sradh Ceremony. The deceased husband of the defendant was also the
member of the society. It is further stated that she is fully dependent upon
her sons and they are running one Medical Shop in the name and style of
"Sanjay Medicals" since 1990 before filing of this suit. The defendant
admitted that her sons are in continuous possession over the shop room
and they have regularly paid the rent to the plaintiff. The defendant further
admits that the rent for the month of August and September, 2011 was
paid on 25.12.2011 but no such warning has been given to the defendant.
The defendant also submits that her sons have regularly paid the rent
without any boundation or any specific day within period to the plaintiff
and the plaintiff has received the rent and issued receipts for the payment
of the rent since long time till today. The defendant further submitted that
the real fact is that after paying the rent for the month of April and May,
2013 on 20.08.2013 from the tenant to the plaintiff, the defendant's legal
heirs approached in the office of the Committee and requested to the
plaintiff to receive the rest amount of the rent, the plaintiff did not receive
the rent and threatened them to vacate the shop room, when the sons of
the defendant asked the reason for the same the plaintiff abused them and
demanded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) within 3-4
months as a "Salami" illegally and threatened them that if they do not pay
the said amount within time, he will forcibly vacate them from their shop.
The defendant has further submitted that on 27.08.2013 the son of the
deceased Giridhari Lal Agarwal issued a Registered Notice to the plaintiff
and requested him to receive the rest amount of the rent through money
order but the plaintiff did not receive the Registered Letter dated
27.08.2013 hence the Registered Letter returned to the son of the
defendant on 30.08.2013. Thereafter, the defendant paid the rent through
money order dated 27.08.2013, money order dated 28.10.2013 and after
that the rent of the shop is paid to the plaintiff from the son of the
defendant through deposit in the bank account of the Committee in their
Account No. 471110100421591 of Bank of India till the month of March,
2015 including amount of returned money order dated 27.08.2013 and
30.10.2013.
5. Mr. Ranjan Kumar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant is the tenant in the premises of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the Eviction suit being Title (Eviction) Suit
No. 02 of 2015 for evicting the appellant which was decreed in favour of
the plaintiffs by the learned trial court by the judgment dated 02.02.2018
and against that the appellant herein preferred the Civil Appeal No. 31 of
2020 and the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro dismissed the said
appeal by the judgment dated 3rd September, 2021. He submits that the
point taken by appellant has not been considered by either of the Courts
and in view of that, substantial question of law is there to admit the
present second appeal. On this ground, he submits that the second appeal
may kindly be admitted.
6. The court has gone through the judgment of the learned trial court
as well as the appellate court. Learned trial court has framed seven issues
to decide the said suit. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were with regard to any landlord
tenancy relationship in between the plaintiff and the defendant and
whether the defendant defaulted in payment of monthly rent in sense of
section 11(1) (d) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 2000 or not respectively, since both the issues were
interlinked, the learned trial court has been pleased to take up both these
issues together. While deciding the said issue, the learned trial court has
considered the evidence of P.W. 1, Sudhanshu Pathak, who supported the
pleading of the plaintiff to the effect that tenanted Shop No. 25 was let out
to one Girdhari Lal Agarwal and after his death, his wife defendant
continued to deposit rent of the said shop. That witness has also proved 12
rented receipts as Ext-1 to Ext. 1/11 respectively.
7. In para 15 and 19 he deposed that no any documentary formalities
was executed for said shop but he admitted that Girdhari Lal Agrawal
himself and after his death his family member were continue to disposed
monthly rent in second week of each month. P.W.-2, Ashok Kumar Jagnani
has also supported the plaintiff. In para 15 and 16, it deposed that at about
25 years ago, the said shop was tenanted to defendant but no any
documentary formality was taken care of. D.W.1, Sanjay Kumar Jalan in
para 18 deposed that he sent money order of Rs. 650 on 30th August 2013
for the month of June, July 2013 and in para 19, he has stated that except
above two money orders, he does not send any money order. In para 21,
he has accepted that he is unable to say that which month's rent is
deposited in the Bank and it is further stated that the rent was denied, and
that's why it was deposited in the bank. In para 31, he stated that he was
aware about the tenancy. In para 32, he denied that when plaintiff denied
to accept rent after June, 2013, then defendant's shop depositing rent and,
therefore, rent became dues. Thus, the D.W.1 has also accepted about the
tenancy. He has only stated that two money order have been sent and,
thereafter, allegations are made that it was deposited in the bank.
However, in para 32, he denied that plaintiff accepted any rent after June
2013. In this background, the learned trial court considering the spirit of
Section 11 (1) (d) of the said Act, found that the requirement of two
months default in payment of rent is sufficient to make out a case of
default and that has been proved and in view of that, learned court has
been pleased to pass the judgment of eviction of the appellant herein.
8. Aggrieved with the said judgment, of the learned trial court dated
20.12.2019, the defendant/ appellant herein has preferred the Civil Appeal
No. 31 of 2020 which was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Bokaro by the judgment dated 3rd September, 2021. Learned appellate
court has further framed three points to decide the appeal at paragraph no.
10 of the said judgment and after discussing the law point on Section 11
(1)(d) of the said Act and in light of Exhibit 1 and marked exhibit 1/1 to
1/11, the learned appellate court has found that the tenancy was there and
payment was made in irregular manner. Further the learned appellate court
has considered that only two months default is sufficient to make out a
case of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. In that background,
the learned appellate court has also been pleased to dismiss the appeal.
9. The word lawfully in Clause (d) of Section 11 (1), of the said Act is
followed by the word payable. The rent which is payable by the tenant
must be lawful. The words used are lawfully payable and not lawfully
recoverable. However, even if recovery of some amount becomes barred by
limitation, it only means that the amount cannot be recovered by process
of law. But such an amount does not becomes unlawful on the expiry of
the period of limitation. Both the learned courts on the issues in question
have given a concurrent finding.
10. On the point of limitation, the sole respondent was noticed and he
has appeared and the learned counsel submits that for execution of the
said decree, Execution Case No. 7 of 2020 was instituted and now the said
execution case has already been executed and the appellant herein has
been evicted. He has produced the photo-copy of the order dated
13.10.2023 passed by the Executing Court which is taken on record.
11. The court finds that there is concurrent finding of two courts. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to point out
any perversity in judgment of either of the courts. It is well settled that this
court is not required to re-appreciate the facts in second appeal. The
second appeal can only be admitted on the substantial law point.
12. What has been discussed hereinabove, there is no perversity in the
judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court
and there is concurrent finding of two learned courts and there is no
perversity in both the judgment.
13. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and
further decree is already executed and as such, S.A. No. 86 of 2022 is
dismissed.
14. Pending petition if any, also dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Rashmi/
A.F.R.
