Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal @ ... vs Vikash Agrawal
2022 Latest Caselaw 4168 Patna

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.372 of 2018
======================================================

Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal @ Jagdish Khandelwal Son of Late Jauharimal, Proprietor of Sanetory House, Sarswati Bhawan, Behind Vikram Hotel, Exhibition Road, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna, residing at Indira Bhawan, 20A, Kasturba Path, North Sri Krishnapuri, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus Vikash Agrawal Son of Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal, Resident at Sarswati Bhawan, Behind Vikram Hotel, Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rana Ishwar Chandra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL

Date : 01-08-2022

Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in Eviction Suit No. 20

of 2010, filed by the respondent, pending before learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, 3rd, Patna.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order, dated

15.12.2017, passed in Eviction Suit No. 20 of 2010, by which the

request of the petitioner for verification of signature of the father

of the plaintiff-respondent upon the diary by handwriting expert

has been rejected.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.372 of 2018 dt.01-08-2022

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the father of the plaintiff-

respondent in the year 1989 on the basis of oral tenancy. He

further submits that subsequently the tenancy was reduced into

writing by the plaintiff's father and in a diary maintained by him,

both had put their signatures. The contention of the petitioner is

that at that point of time, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was paid by the

petitioner-defendant to the father of the plaintiff-respondent as

Salami for tenancy and Rs. 10,000/- for repair of the ceiling of the

tenanted premises. He next submits that in course of examination

as plaintiff witness, the father of the plaintiff-respondent has

denied his signature on the diary and stated that the same would be

verified through the expert. Accordingly, his submission is that

despite acceptance before the learned Court below by the father of

the plaintiff-respondent, he did not take any step for verification of

his signature on the diary by the expert. As such, the petitioner

filed a petition for having the signatures verified through

handwriting expert before the learned Trial Court, but the learned

Trial Court has erroneously rejected the same.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-

respondent submits that the suit is purely for eviction on the

ground of personal necessity. The admitted position is that the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.372 of 2018 dt.01-08-2022

petitioner-defendant has accepted the relationship of landlord and

tenant between the parties. The learned Court below, while

rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner, has come to the

conclusion that in the instant suit for eviction, the plaintiff's only

case is to prove the genuineness of his personal necessity, specially

in the light of the fact that the relationship of the landlord and

tenant is not disputed. He further submits that the learned Court

below has further come to the conclusion that the defendant has

not been able to show as to in what manner the comparison of the

signature of the father of the plaintiff on the said diary would be

relevant for the proper adjudication of the real issue involved in

the suit. He next submits that the learned Court below has further

come to the conclusion that petition has been filed by the

defendant in order to delay the disposal of the suit.

6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and

upon perusal of the materials available on record, including the

impugned order, it is evident that admittedly the suit is for eviction

on the ground of personal necessity. The payment of salami of Rs.

80,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for repair of the ceiling of the tenanted

premises given by the petitioner-defendant is not relevant for

deciding the real issue of personal necessity in the suit.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.372 of 2018 dt.01-08-2022

7. Accordingly, I do not find any legal infirmity in the

impugned order.

8. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/-

AFR/NAFR                         NAFR
CAV DATE                          N/A
Uploading Date                01-08-2022
Transmission Date                 N/A