Vikrant Sharma vs Smt. Rita Mukharjee
2024 Latest Caselaw 3583 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vikrant Sharma vs Smt. Rita Mukharjee on 7 February, 2024

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                    AT JABALPUR
                                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
                                    S.A. No.2676 of 2023

                BETWEEN:-

                VIKRANT SHARMA S/O SHRI KESHAV
                SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                OCCUPATION: PRESS REPORTER R/O
                H. NO. C-19, FIRST FLOOR, B.D.A.
                COLONY, BUS STOP NO 6, SHIVAJI
                NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....APPELLANT

                (BY SHRI L.C. CHOURAISYA - ADVOCATE)

                                             AND

                SMT. RITA MUKHARJEE W/O LATE UDAY
                MUKHARJEE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O
                H. NO. C-19, FIRST FLOOR, B.D.A. COLONY,
                BUS STOP NO 6, SHIVAJI NAGAR BHOPAL
                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                         .....RESPONDENT

                (NONE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reserved on             :        19.12.2023

        Pronounced on           :        07.02.2024
     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  -   2 -



      This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:

                                ORDER

This second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity "CPC") has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No.106/2023 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Sixth Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.803A.2006.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that plaintiff (respondent in the present appeal) filed a civil suit against the appellant/defendant for eviction of House No.C-19 situated at BDA Colony, Bus Stop No.6, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal. The case of plaintiff/respondent is that rented portion of the house was taken by defendant/appellant on monthly rent at Rs.11,500/- since 17.12.2014. As per the terms of agreement, defendant/appellant had to pay monthly rent on the date between 15 to 20 of every month. Defendant had not given rent to the plaintiff and had not paid electricity bills of rental portion. Sounds of fighting and shouting were heard everyday from the rental portion of defendants and they were creating nuisance. It is further stated that defendant did not pay rent from 15.01.2015, therefore, plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant for eviction of rental premises, on the ground of bona fide need and creating nuisance.

- 3 -

3. The appellant/defendant filed written statement and denied allegations made in the plaint. He further submits that appellant/defendant paid rent of every month. He further submits that no cause of action arises to institute the suit, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court after framing the issues, recording evidence of both the parties and after hearing them, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that defendant has not paid the rent as per Section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and he has not complied with the provisions of aforesaid Section. On this ground, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, defendant preferred F.A. No.106/2023 which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.10.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that receipts of payment of house rent paid by defendant have been produced before the Court. In the trial Court, neither any objection was raised regarding their credibility not any request was made to conduct any kind of enquiry regarding their authenticity. The defendant has successfully proved that he has paid the house rent regularly, but both the Courts committed grave error in proving the conclusion of Issue No.2 by ignoring oral and documentary evidence of defendant. From the house

- 4 -

rent receipts filed by the defendant before the trial Court, it is clear that defendant has paid the rent to the plaintiff/respondent from December, 2014 to December, 2016. Thus, the defendant has not violated the provision of Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommocation Control Act. It is also submitted that receipts filed by the appellant are genuine and the plaintiff has made signature on these receipts, but both the Courts gave finding that signature of plaintiff on the receipts is not proved. It is also submitted that both the Courts were competent to compare the signature of plaintiff on the receipts but they did not compare and gave the finding against the defendant/appellant. Thus, both the subordinate Courts committed grave legal error in decreeing the suit which deserve to be quashed as it is against the law.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

8. The Second Appeal is filed under the provisions of Section 100 of CPC which provides that Second Appeal is entertainable by the High Court if it satisfies that the case involves a substantial question of law. Section 101 of CPC provides that no second appeal shall lie except on the ground mentioned in Section 100 of CPC.

9. In Second Appeal, the re-appreciation of evidence and interference with the findings of facts is not permissible.

10. Plaintiff/respondent in the present appeal had given notice (Ex.P-

11) to the defendant/appellant herein on 14.07.2015 before filing the present suit. In para 7 of this notice, it is mentioned that defendant had

- 5 -

not paid any monthly rent or electricity bill from 15.10.2014 (date of execution of agreement Ex.P-1) till 14.07.2015. Defendant/appellant sent reply to notice on 04.08.2015 vide Ex.P-12. In para 7 of this reply, it is mentioned that he has paid rent and electricity bill till July, 2015 to the plaintiff in cash.

11. It is pertinent to mention here that in reply, defendant/appellant mentioned that he has paid monthly rent and electricity bill till July, 2015 in cash, but in evidence, he has produced the rent receipts Ex.D-1 to D-24. Rent receipts Ex.D-1 to D-7 are of dated 12.10.2015 and as per these receipts, monthly rent and electricity bill from December, 2014 to July, 2015 (either seven months) has been paid on 12.10.2015, therefore, documents Ex.P-12 and Ex.D-1 to D-7 of the defendant/appellant are contradictory to each other which create suspicion on the authenticity of these rent receipts.

12. It is also pertinent to mention here that plaintiff Smt. Reeta Mukharji in her evidence has clearly stated that after execution of agreement, the defendant has not paid any monthly rent or electricity bill. During cross-examination of plaintiff, defendant did not produce rent receipts Ex.D-1 to D-24 and had not specifically asked the plaintiff that through these receipts she has received rent amount and made signature on these receipts.

13. Appellant/defendant has produced rent receipts Ex.D-1 to D-24. Out of these receipts Ex.D-1 to D-10 are of dated 12.10.2015 and Ex.D-

- 6 -

11 to D-24 are of dated 13.10.2015 to 26.10.2015 respectively. As per these receipts, Rs.13,000/- and electricity bill has been paid. Learned First Appellate Court in para 12-13 of the judgment has mentioned that in this matter, it is not clear that why the amount has not been paid in one time and from perusal of these rent receipts, it appears that these receipts have been made after filing the suit. It is also mentioned that from these receipts it does not appear that defendant/appellant in the present appeal has paid rent to the plaintiff. Before the trial Court, defendant/appellant has not proved that these receipts Ex.D-1 to D-24 bear the signature of plaintiff. In this regard, defendant/appellant has not filed any application to examine the signature of plaintiff through hand writing experts.

14. From perusal of record, it is found that trial Court and First Appellate Court has given specific finding that defendant/appellant has not paid monthly rent and electricity bill. Findings of both the Courts are based on proper appreciation and oral and documentary evidence.

15. In the present case, no perverse finding was given by the trial Court and First Appellate Court, therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present case. Neither the Courts below ignored any material fact nor considered any inadmissible evidence, thus, the concurrent findings of the Court below are not liable to be interfered with.

- 7 -

16. Ex-consequenti, the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No.106/2023 and the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Sixth Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.803A.2006, are hereby affirmed.

17. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

(PRMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL) JUDGE

Sateesh

Date: 2024.02.09 18:28:58 +05'30'