Dismissed¶¶53

Uma Gadodia v. Sri Gopal Kasera Alias Gopal Kasera

Landlord-tenant eviction – default in payment of rent

Jharkhand HC18 Dec 2025SA/84/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal No. 84 of 2023; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; decision dated 18/12/2025; eviction suit; default in payment of rent; arrears Rs. 2,625; alleged advance rent Rs. 13,000 dated 16.07.1989; money receipt Exhibit-F; handwriting expert not examined; dasti summons; additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; remand from S.A. No. 42 of 1996; illegally enhanced rent Rs. 62,400; no substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed; pending I.A. closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the second appeal was dismissed and pending I.A., if any, was closed. ¶¶53

Uma Gadodia Vs Sri Gopal Kasera Alias Gopal Kasera — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the second appeal was dismissed and pending I.A., if any, was closed.

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Is the suit as framed maintainable? (Trial court issue no. 1) +6 more

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

This Court, on perusal of the remand judgment, found that the learned 1st appellate court meticulously examined both the oral and documentary evidence and correctly held that the defendants, through their oral and documentary evidence, failed to prove that Rs. 13,000/- was paid as advance rent to the plaintiff on 16.07.1989; consequently the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and the first appellate court rightly dismissed the appeal.

¶¶52

Key takeaways

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, is involved in this case; accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.ratio¶¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Landlord-tenant eviction — default in payment of rent — Second Appeal dismissed. The trial court (Munsif, Ranchi, Eviction Suit No. 58 of 1989; judgment dated 16.10.1993) decreed eviction for default in rent from 04.07.1989 and Rs. 2,625 as arrears. The defendant's pleas of adjustment of Rs. 62,400/- as illegally enhanced rent were closed by the earlier second appeal (S.A. No. 42 of 1996, order dated 14.01.1997) in view of a full bench decision of the Court; remand to the 1st appellate court was confined to additional evidence (under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC) of an alleged advance payment of Rs. 13,000/- on 16.07.1989. On remand, the Additional Judicial Commissioner, I. Ranchi (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1994; judgment dated 13.12.2022) noted contradictions among defence witnesses, that the money receipt (Exhibit-F) bore the plaintiff's signature denied by him and was exhibited over objection, that the handwriting expert was never examined despite a dasti summons, that D.Ws. 4-6 admitted no document was executed, and that D.W. 6 admitted rent was unpaid since 04.07.1989; the defendant was therefore held a defaulter and the appeal dismissed. The High Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) found no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, and dismissed the second appeal; pending I.A. closed.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:38776 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Second Appeal No. 84 of 2023

¶4

Uma Gadodia aged about 54 years, widow of late Kamal Nayan Gadodia

¶5

Mohit Gadodia, aged about 27 years, son of late Kamal Nayan Gadodia

¶6

Kanhu Gadodia, aged about 25 years, son of late Kamal Nayan Gadodia All are R/o at Commercial Office at J.J. Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, (Jharkhand)

¶7

… … … Defendant No. 3 / Appellants/Appellants Versus

¶8

Sri Gopal Kasera @ Gopal Kasera, son of Late Gauri Shankar Kasera, R/o Marwari Tola, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, PO-GPO, PSKotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶9

… Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent

¶10

M/s Ramkumar Harishankar, R/o A firm having its business concern of JJ Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi

¶11

Manish Gadodia, S/o Late Natwar Lal Gadodia

¶12

Pranay Gadodia, S/o Late Ravishankar Gadodia

¶13

Pawan Gadodia, S/o late Harishankar Gadodia

¶14

Dilip Gadodia, S/o Late Harishankar Gadodia All R/o J.J. Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶15

Sushma Raj Gadodia, W/o Pradeep Raj Gadodia, R/o 13/12 Nilkanth Apartment, 1^st Floor, Rohini, PO and PS-Rohini, DistrictNew Delhi

¶16

Sanjay Gadodia, S/o Late Brijmohan Gadodia

¶17

Shumitra Devi, W/o Late Brijmohan Gadodia

¶18

10.Ram Gadodia, son of late Ram Kumar Gadodia

¶19

11.Rajkumar Gadodia, son of late Ram Kumar Gadodia

¶20

12.Madhu Gadodia, son of late Ram Kumar Gadodia All R/o J.J. Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶21

… Defendant/Respondent/Respondents ---

¶22

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Vedbrata Banerjee, Advocate : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate ---

¶23

08 /18.12.2025 This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2022 (decree signed on 05.01.2023) passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, I. Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1994 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The trial court’s

¶24

( 2025:JHHC:38776 )

¶25

judgment and decree are dated 16.10.1993 (decree signed on 25.11.1993) passed by learned Munsif Ranchi, in Eviction Suit No. 58 of 1989 whereby the suit seeking eviction inter alia on default in payment of rent was decreed. The defendant has lost in both the courts and consequently this second appeal has been filed.

¶26

2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that earlier the First Appeal was decided in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1994/10 of 1995 and upon an appeal filed by the tenant before the High Court being Second Appeal No. 42 of 1996 (R) the matter was remanded to the 1^st Appellate Court. Thereafter the present impugned order has been passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court.

¶27

3. The learned counsel has submitted that the money receipt with respect to Rs. 13,000/- was adduced as additional evidence before the learned 1^st appellate court pursuant to the order of remand and the same was relatable to payment of advance and was dated 16.07.1989. He submits that if this amount would have been adjusted, then there is no question of default in payment of rent. The learned counsel has also submitted that the report of handwriting expert with respect to the money receipt of Rs. 13,000/- has not been taken into consideration by the court therefore the substantial question of law arises for consideration. He has also submitted that the evidence of the witnesses has also not been properly considered by the learned 1^st appellate court on remand.

¶28

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this court finds that the plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and for a decree of sum of Rs. 2,625 as arrears of rent. The suit was contested and a plea was taken that the plaintiff had realized a total sum of Rs. 62,400/- by way of illegally enhanced rent and the same was liable to be adjusted towards rent from 04^th of July 1989. A further plea was also taken that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 13,000/- as advance and the required money was paid on 16.07.1989 and a plea was raised inter alia that on account of the aforesaid facts, the defendant could not be said to be a defaulter in payment of rent.

¶29

¶30

( 2025:JHHC:38776 )

¶31

5. The following issues have been framed by the learned Trial Court which are as under: -

¶32

(1) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

¶33

(2) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit?

¶34

(3) Whether there is relationship of land lord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant?

¶35

(4) Whether the defendants defaulted in payment of rent from 4^th July, 09 till filing of suit?

¶36

(5) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

¶37

6. The issues no. 3 was not contested and it was decided in favour

¶38

of the plaintiff.

¶39

7. While deciding issue no. 4, the learned Trial Court considered the materials on record both oral and documentary and ultimately also considered the question as to whether the defendant had failed to pay Rs. 13,000/- as advanced rent to the plaintiff and whether it was liable to be adjusted. The learned court held that the theory adopted by the defendant that he paid Rs. 13,000/- as advance rent which was liable to be adjusted towards future rent was not established by the defendant by oral or documentary evidence. The learned trial court also considered the claim of the defendant with regard to excess rent of Rs. 62,400/- but the Court recorded that no basic details in connection with the said amount was given and was of the view that the defendant failed to establish any definite case of set off of adjustment of rent and had not paid the court fees of set off of excess of rent and therefore the claim of defendant for adjustment of rent was not considered. The learned court ultimately held that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent since 4^th of July 1989 and was liable of be evicted. The plaintiff was also entitled for rent of Rs. 2,625.

¶40

8. This judgment of the learned trial court was challenged by the defendant in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1994/10 of 1995 which was dismissed. The defendant filed second appeal being S.A. No. 42 of 1996, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.01.1997 by recording that at the 2^nd appellate stage, the defendant had filed the petition under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking to adduce additional

¶41

¶42

( 2025:JHHC:38776 )

¶43

evidence regarding payment of Rs. 13,000/- on 16.07.1989 as advance to the plaintiff.

¶44

9. With respect to the aforesaid additional evidence regarding payment of Rs. 13,000/- on 16.07.1989 as advance , the court in 2^nd Appeal No. 42 of 1996 observed that the plea of payment of 13,000/on 16.07.1989 was taken by the defendants at the very 1^st instance but regarding its payment no document or receipt was produced as the said document was not in the hand of the defendant at the stage of trial or at the stage of 1^st appeal. Before the High Court in 2^nd appeal the defendant had come up with a plea that earlier such document could not be found out on search and ultimately it was found. The High court in 2^nd appeal observed that whether the receipt of payment regarding Rs. 13,000/- on 16.07.1989 was procured or not or manufactured, the same can be decided, if the same is put on trial by the additional evidence and was of the view that a chance to be given to the defendant to produce the additional evidence in this respect alone. The High court also observed with regard to the other points and observed that enhancement of rent has already been decided by both the fact-finding courts and on the basis of full bench decision of this Court, the matter has been set at rest and the same cannot be agitated now and the court observed that on this score, the defendant had no case. The High court also observed that although other points were found in favour of the plaintiff but in respect of default in payment of rent and in respect to decree regarding rent from 04.07.1989 was required to be reconsidered as the defendant was coming up with a fresh document in support of their contention of payment of advance rent. The prayer under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC was allowed and the matter was sent back to the learned 1^st appellate court to give an opportunity to the defendant to adduce additional evidence on the document of payment of advance rent as mentioned above alone and it was also observed that the plaintiff should also be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal and the matter was remanded.

¶45

¶46

( 2025:JHHC:38776 )

¶47

10. Upon remand in terms of the order passed in 2^nd Appeal No. 42 of 1996, the plea of payment of Rs. 13,000/- by the defendant on 16.07.1989 as advance rent was duly considered by the learned 1^st appellate court and the only point for determination before the 1^st appellate court on remand was to consider as to whether the defendant has been able to prove his plea of payment of Rs. 13,000/- on 16.07.1989 as advance rent and the same was liable to be adjusted and as such the defendant had not defaulted in payment of rent through oral as well as documentary evidence and as to whether the defendant committed default in payment of rent.

¶48

11. The learned 1^st appellate court upon remand in terms of 2^nd Appeal No. 42 of 1996 considered the oral and documentary evidences and while considering the same the learned court recorded the contradictions in the evidence of the defendants and also recorded that defendant no. 8, contrary to the evidence of defendant nos. 4,5 and 6, stated that exhibit-F was prepared regarding payment of Rs. 13,000/- to the plaintiff but plaintiff had not admitted his signature on the same and therefore this money receipt was marked exhibit with objection of the plaintiff. The learned court also observed that expert opinion was obtained regarding the said signature and the court issued dasti summon for examination of expert but the expert was not examined by the defendant and therefore the defendant could not prove the genuineness of the money receipt amounting to Rs. 13,000/paid on 16.07.1989. The learned court further observed that D.W. 4, 5 and 6 also admitted that no such document was executed regarding payment of Rs. 13,000/- as advance on 16.07.1989. The court further observed that the evidence of D.W. 7 showed that he was not in a position to say that whether any document was reduced into writing regarding this transaction or not. The learned court further observed that D.W. 8 had stated that Shiv Bhagwan Patwari prepared the receipt of amount of Rs. 13,000/- and signed by the plaintiff Gopal Kasera before him but the version of D.W. 8 that the document (exhibit-F) was prepared before him was falsified by the evidence of D.W. 7 Hari Shankar Gadodia who claimed to pay Rs. 13,000/- to Gopal Kasera in

¶49

¶50

( 2025:JHHC:38776 )

¶51

presence of his elder brother Ram Kumar Jee, Raj Kumar Jee, Murari Lal Sharma, Ram Avtar and Kisan Lal Poddar. The learned 1^st appellate court ultimately recorded that it showed that neither D.W. 8 nor Shiv Bhagwan Patwari was present at the time of so-called transaction. The learned court further considered the exhibit-C, which is a notice of the defendant dated 15.09.1989 regarding adjustment of Rs. 62,400/-, which was alleged to have been illegally collected by the plaintiff towards rent, but in the said notice there was nothing mentioned about the alleged payment of Rs. 13,000/- on 16.07.1989 to the plaintiff for rent. The learned 1^st appellate court also took into consideration that D.W. 6 himself admitted in his evidence that rent was not paid since 04.07.1989 because he asserted that Rs. 13,000/was paid as advance for rent and which stood admitted from the side of the defendant that he did not pay rent with respect to the suit premises for the period from 04.07.1989 onwards. The D.W. 7 had himself stated that an amount of Rs. 13,000/- was paid to the plaintiff as advance on 16.07.1989 but in his cross examination he could not say as to whether any receipt was obtained or not? The learned 1^st appellate court ultimately, after scrutinizing the materials on record, both oral and documentary, was of the considered view that the defendant failed to prove that they have paid Rs. 13,000/- as advance rent to the plaintiff on 16.07.1989.

¶52

12. Upon perusal of the judgment of the learned 1^st appellate court, which has been passed in terms of the order of remand passed in second appeal, this court finds that the learned 1^st appellate court has meticulously examined both the oral and documentary evidences and held that the defendant, through their oral and documentary evidence, have failed to prove that Rs. 13,000/- was paid as advance rent to the plaintiff on 16.07.1989. Consequently, the learned 1^st appellate court held that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and dismissed the appeal.

¶53

13. This court finds that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law is involved in this case and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶54

¶55

( 2025:JHHC:38776 )

¶56

14. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶57

15. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through

¶58