Shambhu Nandan Kumar And Ors vs Rajesh Kumar Rajak And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 6897 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shambhu Nandan Kumar And Ors vs Rajesh Kumar Rajak And Ors on 17 November, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                   S.A. No. 37 of 2012

                     Shambhu Nandan Kumar and Ors.             ...       ...    Appellants
                                         Versus
                     Rajesh Kumar Rajak and Ors.   ...               ...       Respondents
                                         ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate

---

26/17.11.2025 The learned counsels for the parties are present.

2. This Second appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 10.02.2012 (decree singed on 15.02.2012) passed by learned District Judge I, Pakur in Title (Eviction) Appeal No.1 of 2007 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has set aside the judgement dated 20.12.2006 (decree dated 05.01.2007) passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.34 of 2003 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Pakur. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

3. The suit was filed seeking eviction on account of default in payment of rent. The learned counsel has also indicated that original plaintiff and the defendant have expired and they have been substituted.

4. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 05.04.2018 framing the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff respondent has failed to prove that she has ever communicated the change of ownership of the suit property to the defendant - appellant is perverse and is liable to be set aside?"

The plaint.

5. As per the plaint the original plaintiff had purchased the property in which suit property is situated named 'Goenka Niwas' from its owner namely Madan Mohan Goenka by virtue of registered sale deed no.792 dated 11.07.2000 and upon purchase the original plaintiff named the property as 'Kumar Niwash'. He has submitted that as per the plaint, the suit property is part and parcel of 'Kumar Niwash' which was originally let out to the defendant by the vendor of the plaintiff, namely, Madan Mohan Goenka, on a monthly rent of Rs.450/- where the original defendant was running a dry-cleaning business in the name and style of "Band Box Dry Cleaners".

6. It has also been averred in the plaint that after execution of the registered sale deed on 11.07.2000 in favour of the plaintiff , the original owner namely, Madan Mohan Goenka, served a letter under certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000 through his manager - cum - general power of attorney Sri Satya Narayan Dutta to the defendant informing him about the transfer of the building to the plaintiff and further requested the defendant to make payment of monthly rent from 11.07.2000 onwards to the new landlady namely Dayamanti Devi (the plaintiff) , but the defendant failed to make payment and did not even respond to the said letter either to the previous owner namely, Madan Mohan Goenka, or to the plaintiff.

7. It was case in the plaint that thereafter, the plaintiff sent a registered letter dated 12.10.2000 upon the defendant by making a reference to the earlier letter dated 12.07.2000 and requested the defendant to make payment of rent but the defendant refused to accept the registered letter, which returned back to the plaintiff. It was further averred in the plaint that after refusal of the registered A/D letter dated 12.10.2000, the defendant had come to the plaintiff several times and requested the plaintiff as well as her son Harinandan Kumar, who used to collect the rent from other tenants in the same building on behalf of his mother, and requested for some time for making payment of arrears of rent but the defendant never paid the rent to the plaintiff till the date of filing of the suit. The specific case of plaintiff was that the defendant has defaulted in payment of monthly rent since 11.07.2000 to June 2003 for about 37 months in spite of several demands verbally and through letter and therefore the defendant was liable to be evicted on account of default in payment of rent.

The written Statement

8. A written statement was filed by the original defendant opposing the suit alleging non-joinder of necessary party on the ground that the original landlord was not made party in the proceedings. It was also asserted that Madan Mohan Goenka had other brothers, but they had not executed the registered sale deed, and accordingly, the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiff itself was defective. It was asserted that the suit property belonged to one Champa Devi Goenka, which was let out to the defendant on 19.01.1973 on monthly rent of Rs.60/- only and the rent was lastly increased up to Rs.450/- per month and such increase was under

coercion, and therefore, the defendant is entitled for adjustment of the excess amount paid. It was asserted that Champa Devi Goenka has three sons including Madan Mohan Goenka and other two sons were still alive and hence the title of the plaintiff is itself defective since the plaintiff has purchased the property only from Madan Mohan Goenka.

9. It was asserted that Sri Satya Narayan Dutta, the manager of Madan Mohan Goenka and his brothers, used to realize rent from the defendant and under the conspiracy, though they received rent in the month of July 2000 for the month of June 2000, they did not grant rent receipt on one pretext or the other and started compelling the defendant to enter into fresh tenancy for a period of 11 months in the name of the son of the defendant to which the defendant did not agree and said Madan Mohan Goenka and his brothers refused to accept the rent from the defendant. Consequently, the defendant started remitting rent to Madan Mohan Goenka through money order till the month of October, 2003 but Madan Mohan Goenka has been refusing to receive the rent so remitted.

10. The defendant denied the allegation that the information regarding change of ownership was given to him under the certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000. He also asserted that the registered letter with A/D dated 12.10.2000 giving reference to the letter dated 12.07.2000 was never handed over by the postal peon to the defendant and as such there was no question of refusing the said letter and the

endorsement of the postal peon of 'refusal' was managed by the plaintiff in connivance with the postal peon.

11. It was asserted that the rent of the suit premises was remitted by the defendant to Madan Mohan Goenka for entire period since 11.07.2000 to June 2003 including the month of July, August and September, 2003 as he was unaware of any change in ownership and had not received valid information regarding it. The defendant stated that he only became aware of the change after receiving notice of the present suit, following which he remitted the rent for the suit premises to the plaintiff in November 2003.

Issues before the trial court.

12. The following issues were framed by the learned trial court:

"(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Has plaintiff valid cause of action?

(iii) Whether there is relationship between plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant?

(iv) Whether defendant is defaulter in the eye of law?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief?"

Evidences placed on record by the parties.

13. The plaintiff had examined altogether 8 witnesses including Satyanarayan Dutta as P.W. 3, who was general power of attorney holder and also the person who used to collect the rent on behalf of the original owner of the property namely Madan Mohan Goenka, who was the vendor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been examined, but her husband has been examined as P.W. 8. The postal peon was examined as P.W. 7. The original sale deed dated 11.07.2000 has been marked exhibit 1.

14. The following documents were exhibited:

"Exhibit 1 - Original sale deed no.792 dated 11.07.2000 executed by Madan Mohan Goenka in favour of Dayamanti Devi the plaintiff.

Exhibit 2 - Notice dated 11.07.2000.

Exhibit 2/A - Under certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000

Exhibit 3 - Notice dated 12.10.2000 sent by Dayamanti Devi to Rajesh Kumar Razak the defendant.

Exhibit 3/a - Acknowledgement Exhibit 3/b - Envelope Exhibit 3/c - endorsement of envelope Exhibit 4 - Municipal tax receipt dated 17.12.2004 Exhibit 5 - Government rent receipt Exhibit 6 - Original Special power of Attorney dated 03.09.20004 executed by Dayamanti Devi."

15. The defendant examined altogether 5 witnesses including the defendant himself as D.W. 5 and his sons D.W. 3 namely Ranjit lal Rajak. The following documents were exhibited by the defendant:

"Exhibit A : Written statement filed on behalf of the defendant in this case.

Exhibit B to B/37: Series of postal receipts. Exhibit C to C/38: Series of money order acknowledgement. Exhibit D to D/169: Series of house rent receipts."

Findings of the learned trial court.

16. The learned trial court after considering the materials recorded in paragraph 22 of the trial court judgment that there was valid information to the defendant regarding change of ownership of the suit property, but the defendant failed to pay the house rent to the plaintiff.

17. The learned trial court thereafter considered the point as to whether there was valid remittance of house rent to the plaintiff or not and whether the defendant validly remitted the house rent since July 2000 to the original landlord Madan Mohan Goenka or Dayamanti Devi, the plaintiff.

18. The learned trial court recorded the finding in paragraph 27 there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the defendant is a defaulter in making payment of house rent and ultimately the suit was decreed.

Point of determination of the learned 1st appellate court.

19. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for consideration:

"1. Whether the plaintiff respondent is the owner of suit room and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff respondent and defendant appellant?

2. Whether the defendant appellant has defaulted in paying the rent to the plaintiff respondent?

3. Whether the plaintiff respondent is entitled for any relief?"

Findings of the 1st appellate court.

20. While deciding point no.1 , the learned 1st appellate court held that Madan Mohan Goenka had passed the title and ownership to the plaintiff through Exhibit 1.

21. While deciding point no. 2, the learned 1st appellate court held that the case was brought by the purchaser Dayamanti Devi and not by Madan Mohan Goenka. The learned court in paragraphs 11 and 12 held that the defendant had clearly averred that he had no knowledge of the change of ownership till the filing of the case and the plaintiff had failed to prove this fact that the defendant was having knowledge and the defendant was tendering amount to the vendor of the plaintiff and ultimately, held that the defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent to the plaintiff.

Arguments of the appellants.

22. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed the evidence of P.W. 3 and submitted that P.W. 3 has clearly deposed that he had written a letter dated 11.10.2000 under certificate of posting and on behalf of Madan Mohan Goenka, the original owner, to the defendant. He has exhibited both the letter as well as the postal receipt regarding showing sending the letter under certificate of posting as Exhibit 2 and 2/a. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no suggestion or cross-examination on behalf of the defendant alleging that Exhibits 2 and 2/a are forged and fabricated, and therefore, the evidence of P.W. 3 , so far as Exhibit 2 and 2/a are concerned, remained uncontroverted.

23. He has placed the evidence of P.W. 7, the postal peon, who has deposed that he had taken the registered letter to the defendant from the post office on 13.10.2000 but the defendant refused to except the registered letter and he has written on the envelope that the defendant

refused to accept the letter and his signature on the postal letter with the enforcement is marked exhibit 3/c. He has been working in Pakur post office for last 8 years. The learned counsel has submitted that this witness has been cross-examined and during cross examination, it has come that he did not make the endorsement then and there when the letter was offered to the defendant, but there is no cross-examination with regard to refusal of the defendant to take the registered letter.

24. The learned counsel next refers to the evidence of D.W. 5 and submitted that affidavited evidence in chief was filed by D.W. 5 under order 18 Rule 4 CPC. He has submitted that he has reiterated statements made in written statement.

25. By referring to the letter of D.W. 5, who is defendant himself, the learned counsel has submitted that this witness has not stated that the documents produced by the plaintiff were forged and fabricated, nor he has proved the remittance of rent to the plaintiff in month of October, 2003 which he had claimed so in the written statement.

26. The learned counsel has submitted that the suit was instituted on 29.07.2003 and the defendant had taken a specific stand in the written statement that as soon as he came to know that the suit was filed, the defendant had remitted the rent by money order to the plaintiff for the month of September and October, 2003 but no such evidence was produced by the defendant nor any such statement has been made. Rather, he has stated that the case was filed in 2003 and thereafter the defendant has been making payment of rent by depositing rent in the court after 2003.

27. He has in particular referred to the cross-examination of D.W. 5 paragraphs 13 and 14. By referring to the evidence of cross- examination of D.W. 5 at paragraph 13, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defendant has named a number of tenants in the same premises and has stated that they have been paying rent to the plaintiff and they have all been tenants under the previous land lord namely, Madan Mohan Goenka. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 14 of his evidence that the witness has acknowledged that after purchase Dayamanti Devi, has been residing

in the house along with her husband and children. He has also stated that the D.W-5 did not know that other adjoining tenants were giving rent to Dayamanti Devi and at the same time, he has denied the receipt of registered notice dated 11.07.2000 said to have been sent by Dayamanti Devi and also denied to have refused to accept the registered notice.

Arguments of the respondents.

28. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that so far as registered letter said to have been issued by Dayamanti Devi on 12.10.2000 is concerned, the letter has not been proved inasmuch as the envelope was never opened before the court and the contents of the envelope was not proved. He submits that Dayamanti Devi was not examined to say that what letter she had sent to the defendant through registered post. The learned counsel submits that once the content of the letter is not proved, the refusal of the said letter by the defendant has no value in the eyes of law. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the letter dated 11.07.2000 sent by Satya Narayan Dutta (P.W. 3) on behalf of the original landlord Madan Mohan Goenka is concerned, it is for the court to consider the same under the facts and circumstances of the case.

29. Arguments concluded.

30. As the court's time is over, post this case tomorrow i.e. on 18.11.2025 for further dictation to be taken up at 1'o clock.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 17.11.2025.

Saurav/