Anand Kumar Sonkar Aged About 44 Years ... vs Binita Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 6320 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Anand Kumar Sonkar Aged About 44 Years ... vs Binita Singh on 9 October, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                   ( 2025:JHHC:31621 )




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Second Appeal No. 111 of 2024

            Babulal Sonkar (substituted vide order dated 03.07.2025)
            1. Anand Kumar Sonkar aged about 44 years son of late Babulal
                Sonkar, resident of Jugsalai, P.O. and P.S. Jugsalai, District East
                Singhbhum, State Jharkhand
            2. Dhiraj Kumar Sonkar, aged about 45 years, son of late Babulal
                Sonkar, resident of Jugsalai, P.O. and P.S. Jugsalai, Dist. East
                Singhbhum         ... ...        Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
                                       Versus
            1.Binita Singh, wife of late Rajendra Singh
            2. Satyendra Singh, son of late Shyam Babadur Singh
            Both are residents of M.E. School Road, Jugsalai, P.O. and P.S.
            Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
                         ...      ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/ Respondents
                                       ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Ms. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate

---

06/09.10.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2024 (decree signed on 13.06.2024) passed by the learned District Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2023 whereby the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The Trial Court's judgment was passed vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2022 (decree signed on 06.01.2023) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) IV, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit Case No. 12 of 2014 whereby the suit for eviction on account of default in payment of rent and personal necessity has been decreed. The defendant having lost in both the courts is the appellant before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that the relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties was specifically denied and the finding in connection with the relationship of land lord and tenant is perverse and accordingly a substantial question of law be framed. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though rent receipts being exhibit number 1 to ¼ were exhibited but the defendant had ( 2025:JHHC:31621 )

disputed the signature on the same by stating that they were forged and fabricated document and asserted that they were neither tenant of the plaintiffs nor paid any rent. She submits that the learned Trial Court has relied upon exhibit 3 and exhibit 7 to ultimately hold that the original defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff no. 1 claimed to be the absolute owner of the sweet shop and the plaintiff no. 2 is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff no. 1 as well as agent of plaintiff no. 1 who claimed to have been collecting rent. She submits that the property belongs to State Government and not to the plaintiffs and therefore there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

5. The learned counsel submits that as per the Khatiyan, the property was recorded in the name of Raja Jagdish Chandra Dev Dhawaldev and by virtue of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the property was vested with the State and therefore the plaintiffs cannot be said to have title over the property.

6. However, during the course of argument, upon query of this court, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the defendants are also not claiming title over the property but are claiming possessory right by stating that defendants are in possession of the property for more than 80 years. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as point of personal necessity is concerned, the same was not properly examined by the court in as much as it has come in evidence that the son of plaintiff for whom the plea of personal necessity was raised, was working as a contractor in Bokaro and was earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this court finds that the specific case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff no. 1 was the owner of the suit property which is a shop and plaintiff no. 2 being the brother-in-law and agent of plaintiff no. 1 used to collect rent. The specific case was that the defendant is a tenant in the suit property and the rent was payable on monthly basis @ Rs. 450/- per month besides electricity and other charges. The tenancy month was to

( 2025:JHHC:31621 )

be calculated from the 1st day of English calendar month and the rent was payable by the end of the tenancy month i.e. on the 18 th day of next month. The plaintiff no. 2 used to realize the rent from the defendants and the rent receipts were issued and at times the son of the defendant used to put his signature on the back side of counter foil of the rent receipt. The defendants paid rent up to February 2013 to the plaintiff no. 2 for which due rent receipts were granted. However, thereafter the defendants defaulted since March 2013. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff no. 1 is a widow and had three daughters (two married and one unmarried) and one son. The son of the plaintiff no. 1 is engineer sitting idle having no job and being the only son, he has to look after his old age mother and unmarried sister. Hence her son decided not to move out of Jamshedpur in connection with his job. The plaintiff no. 1 and his son both decided to settle at Jamshedpur and intended to run a business of his own in the premises and the proposed business was that of engineering equipment shop. The suitability of the suit property for the proposed business was also explained and it was also stated that the plaintiff no. 1 requested the defendants several times to vacate the suit premises and lastly on 18 th of August, 2014 the defendants flatly refused to vacate the suit premises. The cause of action arose on 18.05.2013.

8. The defendants contested the suit and completely denied the cause of action and also the relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted itself that the suit itself was not maintainable. It was asserted that the plaintiffs are not the absolute owner of the suit property which was situated in the building complex namely 'Mahabir Singh Market Complex'. The plaintiffs were neither the owner nor the land lord and therefore the defendants are not the tenant. It was also denied that the plaintiff no. 2 ever realized any rent from the defendants and ever granted any rent receipt. It was asserted that the plaintiffs with an illegal intention to grab all the shop rooms situated on the plot including the present one had filed other eviction suits against many other business men who were carrying on their business in different shop rooms for more than 60 to 70 years.

( 2025:JHHC:31621 )

9. It was asserted that as a matter of fact, the survey settlement with respect to the suit land was finally published in the year 1937. The Khata No. 516 was prepared in the name of Raja Jagdish Chandra Dev Dhabal Dev as landlord which was used at Haat (namely purana Bazar). The ex-landlord leased for a period of 20 years on annual rent to M/s Dhalbhum Traders and Industries Limited, a joint stock company and had 90% share and pursuant to enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the Haat vested in the State of Bihar as per Notification dated 14.11.1957. It was also asserted that in H.R.C. Case No. 35 of 2012 by order dated 17.12.2013/04.08.2014 it was held that the legal heirs and successors including the plaintiffs have no title over the Mahabir Market Complex.

10. However, during the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that the documents which has been relied upon by the defendants including the Notification dated 14.11.1957 and order of H.R.C. Case No. 35 of 2012 were never exhibited before the learned court. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court and the following documents were exhibited. The list of documents as mentioned in the Trial Court's judgment also does not reflect that the Notification dated 14.11.1957 and the order of H.R.C. Case No. 35 of 2012 was ever exhibited.

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

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for bringing this suit?

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, principles of estoppal, waiver and acquiescence?

(iv) Whether the suit is barred by specific Relief Act and Jharkhand building (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 2011?

(v) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?

(vi) Whether the defendant is defaulter in making payment of rent for more then two months?

(vii). Whether the plaintiffs required the suit premises reasonably and in good faith?

(viii) Whether the suit is liable to be decreed as relief claimed ?

(ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any relief or reliefs ?

( 2025:JHHC:31621 )

(x) Whether partial eviction from the suit premises will satisfy the need of plaintiff.

12. Plaintiff has produced and examined two witnesses as P.W. 1, Satyender Singh, and P.W. 2 Rajeev Ranjan Singh. Defendant has also produced and examined one witness as D.W. 1, Anand Kumar Sonkar.

13. Plaintiff has produced some document marked as Exhibit as follows:-

             Exhibit-1               Rent receipt dated 18.09.2012
             Exhibit-1/1-            Rent receipt dated 18.10.2012
             Exhibit-1/2-            Rent receipt dated 18.11.2012
             Exhibit-1/3-            Rent receipt dated 18.12.2012
             Exhibit-1/4-            Rent receipt dated 18.01.2013

             Exhibit-3-              Certified copy of W.P. (C) No. 7154/11


             Exhibit-4 to 4/3-       Four photographs (On admission)
             Exhibit-5-              Xerox of order dated 06.10.2017 in W.P. (C)
                                     No. 5221/16 (On admission)
             Exhibit-6-              Xerox of order dated 06.10.2017 in W.P. (C)
                                     No. 5213/16 (On admission)
             Exhibit-7-              Certified copy of petition of H.R.C. 33/2011


             Exhibit-8-              Certified copy of order dated 6.6.14 in HRC

             Mark X & X/1 -          Department of Post e-MO (payment).

14. Defendant has also produced some document marked Exhibit as follows: -

             Exhibit-A                   Original Notice
             Exhibit-B                   Original Certified copy of order dated
                                         20.11.15/22.12.2015 in Misc. 01/2013
             Exhibit-C                   Original Certified copy of order dated
                                         05.01.2016 of H.R.C. Case No. 08/2014
             Exhibit-D                   Original Khatiyan vide No. Khata no.
                                         5/6, Plot no. 958





                                                      ( 2025:JHHC:31621 )

15. The learned Trial Court considered the point regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the first instance and the fact that P.W. 1 had exhibited the counter foil of four rent receipts which were marked as Exhibit 1 to ¼ which were dated 18.09.2012, 18.10.2012, 18.11.2012 and 18.12.2012 and 18.01.2013. The defendant did not depose before the court, rather his son was examined as D.W. 1 and he stated that his father was ill and therefore he was not in a position to depose. During cross examination, he identified the attested copy of writ petition and admitted that the same was filed by him which was marked exhibit-3 and in paragraph 16 he has stated that the ownership of the disputed property flows to him from his father. The exhibit-7 was the certified copy of H.R.C. Case No. 33 of 2011 which was an application under Section 19(2) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 in which the defendant was also one of the applicants mentioned at serial no. 26 in the list of the applicants and the learned court recorded that in the said document it was mentioned that the defendants used to pay rent which according to the learned Trial Court corroborated the contention of the plaintiffs. The learned court also took into consideration the exhibit-2 which was a certified copy of the Khatiyan of survey settlement finally published in 1972 which stood in the name of Mahabir Singh who is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiffs were claiming title through Mahabir Singh. The court also recorded that the defendants had not filed any document to show that they are rightful owners of the suit premises. The court also referred to Section 83(2) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act to observe that there is presumption of correctness in connection with finally published record of right and based on the oral and documentary evidence ultimately held that, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. So far plea of default in payment of rent is concerned, it was the case of the defendants that they were not tenant and once it was held that the relationship was that of landlord and tenant, the default in payment of rent stood admitted.

( 2025:JHHC:31621 )

16. So far as the point regarding personal necessity is concerned, it was the specific case of the plaintiffs that the son wanted to settle in Jamshedpur, however, he had gone to Bokaro to work to earn his livelihood for his family which consisted of his unmarried sister and his widow mother. The learned Trial Court held the point of personal necessity in favour of the plaintiffs after considering the materials on record.

17. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following point for determination which are as under: -

"(i) Whether there is relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties?

(ii) Whether while passing the Judgment, the learned lower trial court had properly appreciated the entire evidences of the plaintiff and the defendant's or not?

(iii) Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court require any interference?

18. The 1st appellate court returned concurrent findings in connection with relationship of land lord and tenant and was of the view that in a suit for eviction based on the relationship of landlord and tenant, the court has only to decide whether the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiffs or not and if the title is disputed, the court may incidentally go into such issue to determine the main question about the relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned 1st Appellate Court ultimately held that the suit premises was in possession of the defendants who was the tenant under the plaintiffs and continued to pay rent. It was corroborated by the documents adduced by the plaintiff exhibit-1 to ¼. Once, relationship of land lord and tenant was established, the default in payment of rent could not be questioned.

19. The point of personal necessity was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned 1st Appellate Court. This court finds that though the defendants claimed that rent receipts were forged and fabricated but no steps were taken on behalf of the defendants to get the signature verified through any handwriting expert and the fact remains that the original defendant himself did not depose before the court and it was only his son who had deposed. This court finds that

( 2025:JHHC:31621 )

apart from the rent receipts, there were other materials on record before the court to come to a definite finding that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant. Even in the record of rights, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff's name was recorded and the learned trial court has taken note of this fact. The plea of the defendants that the property belongs to the State and not to the plaintiff was, on the one hand not proved by the defendant by leading any evidence to that effect though certain documents were referred to the written statement, and on the other hand, the plaintiffs has produced the Khatiyan where the name of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was there. Admittedly, in the present case, the defendants are not claiming title over the property.

20. This Court is of the considered view that the learned courts have considered the materials on record and have rightly held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the defendants were defaulter in payment of rent and are liable to be evicted and there was also personal necessity of the suit premises of the son of the plaintiff no.1.

21. This court finds no perversity in the matter of appreciation of the materials on record. The judgements are well reasoned judgements based on materials on record. This court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case and accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.

22. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

23. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09/10/2025 Binit