Jharkhand High Court
Binay Kumar Dokania vs Decorum Nirman Limited on 23 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 19 of 2019
Binay Kumar Dokania, aged about 51 years, son of Sri Raghunath
Dokania, Resident of Jamtara Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District
Jamtara ... ... Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
Versus
Decorum Nirman Limited, a company limited by shares incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 (No. 1 of 1956) having its registered
office at 23A, Netaji Subhash Road, 6th Floor, Room No. 19, P.O. + P.S.
Park Street, Kolkata - 700001, represented through Mr. Shib Kumar
Parsuramka, Son of late Shankarlal Parsuramka, resident of Jamtara
Bazar, Jamtara, P.O., P.S., Subdivision & Sub registration office Jamtara,
District Jamtara as Director
... ... Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
---
rd
12/23 January 2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree
dated 18.12.2018 (decree signed on 03.01.2019) passed by the learned
District Judge-I, Jamtara in Civil Appeal No. 26/2017 whereby the learned
lower appellate court has been pleased to dismissed the appeal and has
affirmed the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2017 (decree signed on
30.06.2017) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) II, Jamtara in
Title Eviction Suit No. 03/2012 whereby the learned trial court had decree
the plaintiff's suit.
3. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated
31.03.2022 on the following substantial questions of law: -
1) Whether certified copy of the registered sale deed No.
428 of 2008 dated 17.7.2008 could have been exhibited on
the date of the judgment as a public document?
2) Whether courts below could have concluded on the basis
of the aforesaid sale deed that the plaintiff is the land lord
of the defendant(s)?
3) Whether in view of the sale deed, the plaintiff can claim
that he has become land lord of the property by virtue of
aforesaid?
4) Whether in view of the fact that the sale deed which
covers total area of 21.95 decimal of land, the decree could
have been passed for eviction in respect of 34 decimal,
which is beyond the area covered by the sale deed.
Arguments of the appellant
4. While referring to the substantial question No. 1, the learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that the registered sale deed has
been wrongly admitted in evidence on the date of judgment. He has
referred to the Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to submit that the sale deed, which
was the basis of the claim of the plaintiff, was required to be produced
while filing the plaint and anything subsequently can be introduced only
with the leave of the Court. He has also submitted that as per Order 13
Rule 1 of CPC, the original document is also required to be filed. The
learned counsel submits that the manner in which the sale deed was
admitted into evidence is unknown to the provisions of CPC. He has also
submitted that if the sale deed is excluded then the basis of the plaintiff
fails and consequently the appeal is to be allowed.
5. The learned counsel has also submitted that merely because the sale
deed is a registered document the same cannot be adduced in evidence in
the manner which has been done, inasmuch as, there was no occasion for
the appellant tenant to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff with
regard to the nature and the extent of land involved in the sale deed. He
has also submitted that the sale deed in the present case cannot be said to
be an admitted document. The learned counsel submits that in case the
sale deed is excluded from the evidence then none of the parties can rely
upon the same for any purpose whatsoever. The learned counsel has also
submitted that merely because the sale deed is registered that by itself
does not become a public document. However, he submits that he shall
provide a copy of a judgment in support of this argument within a period
of two days from today.
6. During the course of hearing, while referring to substantial question
No. 4 which relates to area covered under the aforesaid sale deed, it
transpired that apart from the said sale deed there is no other material or
evidence on record to substantiate as to what was the area of the property
covered under the sale deed.
7. The learned counsel has submitted that in case the sale deed is
excluded then the matter has to be considered on the basis of materials
available on record.
8. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant never
acknowledged the respondent as the landlord and was remitting rent to the
previous landlord and never paid rent to the respondent. He has also
submitted that the previous landlord has not deposed before the court to
deny the remittance of rent by the appellant to the previous landlord
through money orders. He has also submitted that it was the case of the
appellant that the previous landlord at times used to refuse acceptance of
the rent through money order.
Arguments of the respondent
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has
submitted that the sale deed was not in dispute. He has also submitted that
the appellant was only disputing that the sale deed could not have been
executed as there was a lease deed in favour of the appellant. He has also
submitted that the sale deed being admitted document could have been
taken into evidence even at the stage of argument as the execution of the
sale deed was not in dispute. The learned counsel has further submitted
that the appellant has been a rank defaulter. No evidence has been placed
on record by the appellant regarding remittance of rent to the previous
landlord as the appellant has claimed that he continued to pay rent to the
previous landlord till the expiry of the lease in the year 2011.
10. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 13 SCC 13 paragraph 12, 14,
15 and 16 to submit that there is no need for the tenant to attorn to the
sale. He has submitted that by exhibit-2 the previous landlord has
intimated the appellant regarding the sale of the property and both the
courts have come to a conclusion that the appellant was defaulter with
respect to the payment of rent to the respondent who was the purchaser of
the property and stepped into the shoes of the original land lord. He has
also submitted that the appellant had paid rent to the respondent to some
extent, but subsequently he stopped payment of rent. He has also
submitted that the appellant, under Section 19 of the Jharkhand Building
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, could have deposited the rent
before the rent controller in case of any confusion as to who is the real
landlord of the property, but no such steps were taken.
11. He has also submitted that the appellant had also issued a letter to
the respondent seeking renewal of lease. The learned counsel has also
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine 1183 to submit that the registered sale deed is a
public document.
12. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is enjoying the
property without paying rent at all.
13. The learned counsel has also submitted that the definition of
landlord is wide. The previous landlord had informed the appellant that
the entire property has been transferred to the respondent and therefore
there is no question of not remitting rent of the entire property to the
respondent. He has also submitted that there is a concurrent findings
recorded by both the courts that the appellant is a defaulter in the matter of
payment of rent.
14. Arguments concluded.
15. Post this case for judgment on 11.03.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
