Allowed

(A) Shrimati Bharti Pradhan v. Monasi Bhatra

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2022FA/63/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal reversed the dismissal of a landlord's suit for eviction and recovery of rent. The High Court held that the landlord-tenant relationship was established via an agreement and unrebutted evidence, and the Trial Court erred in concluding no rent was due because the specific arrears were not mentioned in a prior compromise deed regarding an earlier, distinct cheque dispute.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; Respondent directed to vacate premises and pay arrears of Rs 68,406 with interest; future mesne profits adjoned.

(A) Shrimati Bharti Pradhan Vs Monasi Bhatra — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

First Appeal No.63 of 2018

¶4

1A. Shrimati Bharti Pradhan, Wife of Late Surendra Pradhan, aged about 48 years,

¶5

1B. Suryansh Pradhan, S/o Late Surendra Pradhan, aged about 19 years,

¶6

1C. Kumari Surili Pradhan, Daughter of Late Surendra Pradhan, aged about 15 years through natural guardian mother Smt. Bharti Pradhan, wife of Late Surendra Pradhan,

¶7

All Residents of Lalbagh, Near Nehru Manch, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

Monasi Bhatra, Daughter of Late Vinod Batra, Original Resident of Mission Compound, Navrangpur, Orissa, At present resident of Near Janpad Panchayat, Main Road, Adawal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Respondent

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Shri Sunil Otwani with Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocates For Respondent : Shri Vikash Shrivastava, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

8.7.2022

¶16

The Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017 passed by the 3^rd Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.8A of 2015, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the suit.

¶17

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit house is situated over the land bearing Khasra No.204/19 situated in Village Adawal, Jagdalpur. The suit property originally belonged to Indu Pradhan, who was mother-in-law of Appellant 1A and grandmother of

¶18

¶19

Appellants 1B and 1C. Subsequently, after death of Indu Pradhan and her son Surendra Pradhan, names of the present Appellants have been mutated in the revenue records. Original plaintiff Surendra Pradhan filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.8A of 2015 against Respondent/defendant Monasi Bhatra for eviction of the suit house and arrears of rent as also for vacant possession. It was pleaded by plaintiff Surendra Pradhan that he rented the suit house to defendant Monasi Bhatra on 20.5.1999 by way of an agreement (Ex.P1). As per the terms of the said agreement, the defendant was to pay rent @ Rs.400 per month and each year the rent was to be increased by 8%. From March, 2006, the defendant stopped making payment of the rent. She also cut 4 trees of nilgiri situated in the suit premises without permission of the plaintiff, which caused a damage of Rs.12,500 to the plaintiff. On 30.3.2010, the plaintiff sent a registered notice to the defendant demanding Rs.37,451 as arrears of rent and demanding Rs.12,500 as damages against cutting of the trees of nilgiri, total for Rs.49,951. The defendant issued a cheque of Rs.49,951 to the plaintiff which was subsequently dishonoured. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which the Respondent/defendant was convicted by the Trial Court. An appeal was preferred before the Court of Session in which a compromise was effected on 22.2.2015 between the parties and all the dues were paid by the Respondent/defendant to the plaintiff from March, 2006 to March, 2010. At that time, the Respondent/defendant also promised that from now onwards she shall be paying the rent regularly and timely. When the

¶20

¶21

Respondent/defendant again failed to pay the rent in the year 2015 then the plaintiff again sent a notice demanding arrears of rent of Rs.68,406 which was for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 and also demanded vacant possession of the suit premises. But, even thereafter, the Respondent/defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit premises. Then the plaintiff filed the civil suit. After service of notice, the Respondent/defendant neither appeared nor did file written statement before the Trial Court. The Trial Court proceeded ex parte against the Respondent/ defendant. After recording of evidence of the plaintiff, vide the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2017, the Trial Court dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also failed to prove that any rent was due to be paid by the defendant. Hence, this appeal by the Appellants/plaintiffs.

¶22

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/plaintiffs submits that the criminal case was only pertaining to dishonour of cheque issued for payment of arrears of rent for the period from March, 2006 to March, 2010. Therefore, at the time of submission of compromise application, there was no need to mention that the arrears of rent for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 was also due. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court in this regard is not in accordance with the provisions of law. He further submits that from perusal of the agreement (Ex.P1), it is well established that the Respondent/defendant was the tenant of the suit house. In this regard, specific pleading was also made by the original plaintiff and his deposition is also not rebutted by the defendant. Therefore,

¶24

¶25

the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is also not in accordance with the evidence adduced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court completely failed to consider the settled provisions of law that once the title of the plaintiff is proved, the reasonable and logical conclusion would be that the other party is a tenant, trespasser or licensee. Therefore, even if landlordtenant relationship is not proved then also a decree of eviction can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs, now, who are the title holders of the suit house. Lastly, it is submitted that in the circumstances of the case and oral and documentary evidence available on record, the findings of the Court below are perverse and deserve to be set aside.

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/defendant opposes the arguments raised on behalf of the Appellants/plaintiffs and submits that there is nothing on record to establish that the suit house is situated on the land bearing Khasra No.204/19. Virtually, the Respondent/defendant possesses the land bearing Khasra No.204/79 which she got in patta. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the civil suit.

¶27

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court with due care.

¶28

It is not in dispute that before the Trial Court, the Respondent/defendant, after service of notice, did not appear and ex parte proceeding was done against her. From the pleadings of the original plaintiff and from perusal of the agreement (Ex.P1), it is

¶29

¶30

well established that on 20.5.1999, the agreement was executed between original plaintiff Surendra Pradhan and the Respondent/defendant. In the said agreement, it is mentioned that the suit house is situated over the land bearing Khasra No.204/19. The statement of Bharti Pradhan, wife of deceased plaintiff Surendra Pradhan has also not been rebutted by the defendant. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is well established that the house in question was situated over the land bearing Khasra No.204/19 which the defendant had taken on rent. Therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is duly established. There is also no dispute on the point that the original plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant for payment of Rs.49,951 against arrears of rent for the period from March, 2006 to March, 2010 and for the damages against cutting of 4 trees of nilgiri. There is also no dispute on the point that the defendant had given the plaintiff a cheque for the amount of Rs.49,951 but the said cheque had dishonoured. Thereafter, a criminal complaint case was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and the defendant was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the Respondent/defendant and in the said appeal a compromise took place between both the parties.

¶31

Before the Court below, the plaintiff witness Bharti Pradhan, in paragraph 13 of her affidavit submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure categorically deposed that a notice was sent to the defendant for demand of Rs.68,406 against the arrears of rent for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 and for

¶32

¶33

vacant possession of the suit property. Despite that, the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor did she vacate the suit premises. The above statement of Bharti Pradhan is not rebutted by the defendant. Looking to the unrebutted statement of Bharti Pradhan that a sum of Rs.68,406 was due against the defendant for arrears of rent for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 and a relationship of landlord and tenant was continued between both the parties, the finding of the Trial Court that there was no continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant is against the evidence available on record.

¶34

The Trial Court dismissed the suit also on the ground that at the time of compromise between the parties on 22.2.2015, in the compromise application (Ex.P12) it was not mentioned that the arrears of rent for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 was due, but this finding of the Court below is not in accordance with law because undisputedly this compromise took place in the aforesaid case of dishonour of the cheque amounting to Rs.49,951. In paragraph 3(A) of the compromise application (Ex.P12), it is clearly mentioned that the cheque for Rs.49,951 given by the defendant to the plaintiff was for the arrears of house rent for the period prior to 5.4.2010. Therefore, at the time of drafting of the application for compromise, it was not required nor was needed to mention that the arrears of rent for the period from 2010 to 2015 was also due. Therefore, the finding of the Court below in this regard is also not in accordance with law and the evidence available on record.

¶35

¶36

Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017 is set aside. The Respondent/defendant is directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over its vacant possession to the Appellants. She shall also pay the Appellants the arrears of house rent of Rs.68,406 due for the period from April, 2010 to January, 2015 within a period of three months from the date of the decree of this judgment, failing which, she shall also be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum from today till final payment. She shall also pay the Appellants future mesne profits @ Rs.800 per month from the date of the Trial Court’s decree, i.e., 11.10.2017 till the date of handing over vacant possession of the suit premises to the Appellants.

¶37

A decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶38

Sd/( Arvind Singh Chandel ) JUDGE

¶39

Gopal

(A) Shrimati Bharti Pradhan v. Monasi Bhatra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(A) Shrimati Bharti Pradhan v. Monasi Bhatra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.N. Chandrashekharan Vs Dhirendra Singh

Smt. Krishna Das Vs Jigar Patel and Anr.

Ramayan Lal Pandey and Ors. Vs Radheshyam Patel and Another

Shibo Lal Patel And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Jagdish Kumar Kaushik Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sukhmat Bai Vs Tijan Bai