In a second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal against a judgment reversing a lower court's decree for recovery of possession. The court held the plaintiff failed to prove the title or the licensee relationship required to evict the defendant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Second Appeal No. 130 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 130 of 2010
Ashit Kumar Basak @ Asit Kumar Basak, son of Late Radha Raman Basak, resident of No.17, New Ranikudar, Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, TownJamshedpur, District- Singhbhum (East) … Appellant
-Versus-
1(a). Jyotsana Basak, w/o Late Amulya Kumar Basak
1(b). Anupam Basak, s/o Late Amulya Kumar Basak
1(c). Vishal Basak, s/o Late Amulya Kumar Basak
All R/o Shop No.13, Old Tina Shed Line, Mazala Patti, Bistupur Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum … Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, Advocate
10/10.01.2023 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Praveen Akhauri, who appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2 Second Appeal No. 130 of 2010
shop premises through the process of the Court. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed Title Appeal No.08 of 2005 and vide judgment dated 17.04.2010, learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East has been pleased to reverse the finding in the suit. Aggrieved with the said judgment in the Title Appeal, the appellant has filed the present second appeal.
3 Second Appeal No. 130 of 2010
and when it will be required by the plaintiff and accordingly the defendant was allowed to occupy the said shop premises on leave and licence of the plaintiff. It was further contended that the plaintiff in the year 1989 requested the defendant to vacate the suit shop premises, but he refused to vacate the shop and that is why the plaintiff issued notice on 10.09.1989 to the defendant though his lawyer asking the defendant to vacate the shop and deliver possession of the shop premises immediately from the expiry of 30.09.1989 and therefore his license was revoked and the defendant was asked to handover the possession of the suit shop premises to the plaintiff by 01.10.1989. The said notice was replied by the defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and refused to deliver the possession and pursuant to that the said title suit was filed by the plaintiff.
4 Second Appeal No. 130 of 2010
Pada Basak started his exclusive business in shop no.13 through his elder son Manindra Nath Basak and thereafter the defendant became in exclusive possession of shop no.13 and running his business. It was also contended that because of family arrangement, the plaintiff has been running his separate exclusive business in shop no.11 O.T.S. Bistupur and shop no.13 was allotted in the name of defendant's father and the rent was paid in the name of the defendant's father and as it was found in convenient to have the name of the appellant/plaintiff Asit Kumar Basak mutated in the office of the TISCO Ltd. and the defendant was continuing in making payment of rent to M/s TISCO Ltd. in the name of the plaintiff. It was also averred that suddenly in the end of August, 1989, the appellant/plaintiff started disturbing the well run business of the defendant in the suit shop premises due to jealousy and greed and in consequence there was a quarrel between them and the matter was settled due to intervention of their well wishers and mutual family partition has already been made and the dispute was settled and it was alleged that there was no cause of action and in spite of that, the said title suit was filed.
5 Second Appeal No. 130 of 2010
the suit. The learned appellate court considering the averments as well as the judgment of the learned trial court, has framed the point whether there is any relationship of licensor and licensee between the plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff has valid right, title and interest over the disputed shop as described in schedule of the plaint and was he entitled to recover the possession thereof, as prayed for in the suit and second point framed by the learned appellate court whether the plaintiff had valid cause of action for the suit and was he entitled to relief prayed for in the suit. On the basis of the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides as well as considering the evidence on the record, the learned appellate court has come to the conclusion that both the parties were living jointly at Jamshedpur. The father of the defendant got a job at M/s TISCO Ltd. The father of the plaintiff was unemployed. The brother of the defendant was also unemployed and that is why, the father of the defendant got allotted two shop rooms in the name of father of the plaintiff, as an employee of TISCO is debarred for taking allotment of the shop for the purpose of business. After allotting the two shops, the shop no.11 occupied by the father of the plaintiff and they started a business over the same. Shop no.13 occupied by the father of the defendant and he gave the said shop to his elder son Manindra Nath Basak, who ran a business of glass material in the said shop room, he closed his business after that the plaintiff started his business in the said shop room. The father of the defendant and defendant used to pay the rent of the said shop room to the TISCO Ltd. and in the year 1980, the plaintiff kept in dark the others, mutated his name in respect of the disputed shops and mutated the name of his mother in respect of shop no.11. Though, the plaintiff or his father never occupied the suit shop
6 Second Appeal No. 130 of 2010
at any point of time and the same was in occupation of the elder brother of the defendant and thereafter by the defendant. So, there is no relation of licensor and licensee between them and pleadings are made to the effect that there are relationship of licensor and licensee and considering that, the learned appellate court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff cannot claim the recovery of possession over the suit premises without declaring his title over the same. When the plaintiff failed to prove the relationship of licensor and licensee over the disputed shop, the plaintiff cannot recover possession of the disputed shop. The learned appellate court set aside the finding of the learned trial court considering that there is no reason to declare that earlier there was relationship of licensor and licensee between the parties and hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to recovery of possession of the shop in question after evicting the defendant there from. The plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the shop. When the title has not been proved, the learned appellate court has rightly reversed the finding of the learned trial court. There is no illegality in the appellate court's order. Second point as framed by the learned court was also not in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.
7 Second Appeal No. 130 of 2010
Smriti Debbrama (Dead) through legal representative v. Prabha
Ranjan Debbrama and others; [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19] held as under:
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff established the requisite relationship of licensor and licensee to claim recovery of possession.
Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proving title to the disputed shop premises.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smriti Debbrama (Dead) through legal representative v. Prabha Ranjan Debbrama and others; [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19]Explained¶33
Ashit Kumar Basak
Jyotsana Basak
Anupam Basak
Vishal Basak
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
