Dismissed

Zulfikar Ahmad and Anr. v. Brigadier Ravi Kumar

Jharkhand HC7 Sept 2015SA/135/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A second appeal in a landlord-tenant eviction dispute where the tenant was inducted for 30 years. The tenant alleged failure to issue rent receipts and raised a personal necessity plea. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tenant failed to follow Section 20 procedures for depositing rent and was a defaulter.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant against the eviction decree was dismissed.

Zulfikar Ahmad and Anr. Vs Brigadier Ravi Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S.A. No.135 of 2014

¶3

Zulfikar Ahmad

¶4

Samsher Ahmad, both sons of late Adalat Hussain, Rahamat Colony (East), P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Distt.- Ranchi ……

¶5

…… Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Brigadier Ravi Kumar, s/o late C.S. Prasad, r/o Neelam Complex Bazar, MohallaDoranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Distt.- Ranchi …… Respondent

¶8

…… Respondent

¶9

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY

¶10

--------For the appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate

¶11

Order No.04 Dated: 7th September, 2015

¶12

This second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment dated 9^th June, 2014 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in connection with Title Appeal No.01 of 2014 whereby the lower appellate court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge-VII, Jr. Division, Ranchi in connection with Title Eviction Suit No.16 of 2009.

¶13

It is submitted that the appellant was inducted as tenant in suit premises for 30 years and he has paid required lease amount i.e. Rs.1,25,000/agreed by between the parties. No lease deed was executed even after repeated request but the plaintiff-respondent had started collecting rent from the defendant-appellant for the suit premises. The admitted case of the plaintiff is that he had not been issuing rent receipt from the very beginning. Suddenly he filed suit for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent stating therein that the defendant has failed to tender rent from the month of July, 2008. Besides aforesaid ground, he has also taken plea of personal necessity. It was also averred that the suit premises was sub-let by the defendant. Since it is admitted by the plaintiff that he had not been issuing rent receipt, the onus lies on his shoulder to prove that rent for the disputed period was not paid but the learned courts below have shifted the onus on the defendant to prove that he had tendered rent for the aforesaid period. The ground of personal necessity has also not been decided in proper perspective. The learned trial Court as well as the learned lower appellate court have not considered this point that the plaintiff is having so many other shops in his possession which were given on rent to others. He had not assigned any reason for choosing the suit

¶14

¶15

premises for personal use. The finding of the trial court as well as lower appellate court are perverse and also constitute substantial question of law

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the courts on the ground taken under 11(i)(c) and 11(i)(d) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The suit was filed in the month of April, 2009 by which the respondent-plaintiff has sought for eviction of the appellant-defendant. It was contended that the rent from July, 2008 has not been paid by the appellantdefendant. Even after filing of the suit, no rent was tendered nor any receipt has been furnished nor any petition was filed for deposit of rent in court. The appellant-defendant never took step to file application under Section 20 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 if no receipt was granted. According to appellant-defendant he had tendered rent by money order in the month of July, 2009 i.e. after three months from the filing of the suit. In this way, he was admittedly defaulter and the finding of both the courts below are quite correct and needs no interference. No substantial question of law, as proposed by the learned counsel for the appellant, needs to be framed for just decision of this appeal.

¶17

I have gone through the judgment of the trial court passed in Eviction Title Suit No.16 of 2009 and the judgment dated 9^th June, 2014 passed in Title Appeal No.01 of 2014. The points which the appellant has raised, more or less are the matters relating to facts. It does not appear that the appellantdefendant ever took steps requesting the respondent-plaintiff to issue rent receipt and if it was not issued by him, no legal steps has been taken as required under Section 20 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The admitted facts also indicate that he was defaulter in making payment of rent and he has failed to prove that he had tendered rent to the plaintiff-respondent for the disputed months. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stand dismissed.

¶18

(D. N. Upadhyay, J.)

¶19

NKC

Zulfikar Ahmad and Anr. v. Brigadier Ravi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zulfikar Ahmad and Anr. v. Brigadier Ravi Kumar

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

Chandrasekhar Patro Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anil Kumar Verma Vs Terence Philips And Anr.

Poonam Devi And Ors. Vs Bahadu Mehta And Ors.

Shri Kishun Bhagat and Ors. Vs Miharika Cheistian and Ors.

Priyadarshani Vs Prateek Kumar

Sri Kamta Prasad Alias Kanta Ram and Anr. Vs Ms R K Construction And Ors.