Dismissed¶27

Shambhu Prasad v. Shambhu Saran Prasad

Patna HC1 Jul 2024C.Misc./1259/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.Misc. No.1259 of 2017 (Patna High Court, Arun Kumar Jha, J., decision dated 01-07-2024): Article 227 challenge to Munsif's order dated 03.04.2017 in Title Eviction Suit No.09/2015 fixing rent at Rs.2100/- per month plus arrears; defences of share-certificate adjustment and advance payment rejected as unsubstantiated; eviction suit to proceed time-bound; petition and I.A.No.8664 of 2018 (restraint on demolition) dismissed; impugned order affirmed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's plea regarding handing over of share certificates and their adjustment towards outstanding rent lacked substantive material and could not inspire the confidence of the Court in the absence of proper document or evidence. ¶22

Shambhu Prasad Vs Shambhu Saran Prasad — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court failed to consider the petitioner's defence that he had given certain share certificates to the plaintiff/respondent in lieu of rent, whose value ought to have been adjusted against the outstanding rent, while passing the impugned order dated 03.04.2017. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court did consider the petitioner's contention and specifically held that the share-certificate plea was a matter of trial requiring adduction of evidence by the parties; therefore the submission that the trial court failed to consider it is incorrect.

¶22

Key takeaways

Without substantive material the petitioner cannot be allowed to frustrate the eviction suit proceeding, which ought to be disposed of in a time-bound manner.ratio¶22
No infirmity was found in the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 and the said order was affirmed.ratio¶25-26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Arun Kumar Jha, J) dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in Title Eviction Suit No.09/2015 by the learned Munsif, Patna City, whereby the petitioner-tenant was directed to pay rent at Rs.2100/- per month together with arrears from the date of filing of the suit until the date of the order. The Court held the tenant's plea that he had given share certificates to the plaintiff/respondent towards consideration and sought adjustment against outstanding rent to be vague and unsupported by substantive material, incapable of inspiring confidence absent proper documents or evidence. The Court found that the trial court had expressly considered this plea and treated it as a matter of trial requiring evidence, so the contention of non-consideration was incorrect; a tenant without substantive material cannot frustrate an eviction suit which must be decided time-bound. The impugned order was affirmed, the petition was dismissed, and I.A.No.8664 of 2018 seeking restraint on demolition of the tenanted premises was also dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1259 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Shambhu Prasad, Son of Late Ram Charitar, resident of Mohalla- Padri Ki Haveli, Guthatta, Madhu Bhawan, P.S.- Khajekalan, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shambhu Saran Prasad, Son of Late Keshava Prasad, resident of MohallaBalkishunganj, Police Station- Alamganj, in the town and District- Patna.

¶7

... ... Respondent/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance :

¶9

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶10

======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Date : 01-07-2024

¶13

Today, the matter has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders (On Petitions)’. Perusal of record shows an I.A.No.8664 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner for restraining the respondent from demolishing the tenanted premises in which the petitioner resides.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I intend to dispose of the present petition at this stage itself.

¶15

The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in Title Eviction Suit No.09/2015 by the learned Munsif, Patna City, Patna whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to pay rent of house as Rs.2100/-per month and the dues rent between the date of filing of suit till the

¶16

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1259 of 2017 dt.01-07-2024 2/4

¶17

date of order.

¶18

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no consideration of defence taken by the petitioner in the impugned order. The petitioner as a tenant has taken a plea that he gave certain share certificate to the respondent in lieu of rent and adjustment of the amount mentioned in the share certificate should have been given to the petitioner. But this fact was not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has given certain amount of money as advance to the plaintiff/respondent, but unfortunately the said fact could not be brought on record.

¶19

Perused the record.

¶20

I find the argument advanced by the petitioner to be specious. Perusal of record shows in the rejoinder to the application filed for deposit of rent, the petitioner as a tenant has taken a plea that he has entered into some agreement of sale for purchase of premises and has also stated in vague terms that towards consideration amount, he gave certain share certificates to the plaintiff/respondent and the value of the share certificate has not been adjusted while considering the outstanding rent. I think the petitioner without any substantive material cannot be

¶21

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1259 of 2017 dt.01-07-2024 3/4

¶22

allowed to frustrate the proceeding of eviction suit which should be disposed of in time bound manner. It also appears from the record that the petitioner was an employee of State Bank of India and till his retirement, the rent was being paid by his employer-State Bank of India and, thereafter, the petitioner has taken a plea that he gave some share certificate to the plaintiff/respondent which should be adjusted towards outstanding rent. At the same time, it has also been taken a defence that the petitioner has been assured by the plainitff/respondent that in lieu of the share certificate, the plaintiff/respondent would transfer his premises for the consideration amount paid in the form of share certificates. Such submission could not inspire confidence of the Court in absence of proper document or evidence. Further, the learned trial court has considered this fact while passing the impugned order and held in specific term that this plea is matter of trial for which evidence is required to be adduced by the parties and only thereafter the court can come to the right conclusion. Therefore, the submission that the learned trial court has not considered the contention of the petitioner while passing the impugned order is incorrect.

¶23