JUDGMENT
Page 1302
1. These second appeals are between the same parties having common grounds and in respect of same suit premises, against a common judgment and decree of affirmance dated 30.1.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge- Page 1303 VIII, Dhanbad. By the impugned judgment and decree, the lower Appellate Court has upheld all the findings of learned Trial Court including the findings on the right, title, relationship between the parties, default and personal necessity which are all in favour of the landlady-respondent.
2. The relevant facts in brief is that the landlady-respondent-Shanti Devi acquired the suit house and adjoining land comprised of two Holdings being Old Holding No. 204 (New Holding No. 126) and Old Holding No. 205 (New Holding No. 127) by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 16.10.86. The defendant-tenant(s) Chandradeep Choubey (deceased) and his son Vishnu Kr. Choubey, who were occupying the said Holdings on monthly rent of Rs. 80/- & 50/- respectively, were informed about the said transfer. Thereafter the landlady demanded rent from the said tenants, but they did not pay. The landlady thereafter sent notice to the said tenants. On receipt of the notice, the said tenants hastened to institute a suit against the landlady being T. S No. 91/86, seeking a decree for declaration that they are entitled to possess the suit premises and that the plaintiff Shanti Devi can not dispossess them. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought restraining the said defendant from interfering with their possession and ejecting them from the suit premises. In the said suit Shanti Devi appeared and filed a written statement refuting and denying the said claim and she also filed a counter claim independently praying a relief for a decree declaring her title over the suit premises and for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The said Chandradeep Choubey had filed written statement contesting the counter claim of the defendant. Shanti Devi thereafter filed two eviction suits against the tenants being T (E) S No. 101/93 and T (E) S No. 103/93 under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act] for eviction of the said tenants on the ground of their being defaulter in payment of rent and her personal necessity of the suit premises. The tenants filed written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and disputing the title of the said Shanti Devi. In view of the common pleadings and claim, Title Suit (Counter Claim) No. 91/86, T (E) S No. 101/93 and T (E) S No. 103/93 were jointly tried by the Munsif-II, Dhanbad. In course of the proceeding of the suits, the original defendant of Title Suit No. 91/86 Chandradeep Choubey died. Thereafter nobody took steps in the said suit and the same was dismissed for default. However, the counter claim filed by the plaintiff Shanti Devi was duly prosecuted wherein she had sought a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties in the said suits, learned Trial Court framed several issues including the issue of title, relationship between the parties, default in payment of rent and personal necessity of the landlady. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidences. After thorough appraisal and consideration of all the facts, evidences and materials on record, learned Trial Court held, inter alia, that the landlady Shanti Devi had got right, title over the suit land and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
4. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the said suits before the Trial Court, an order was passed under Section 15 of the said Act directing the tenants to pay monthly rent to the landlady. The said order was confirmed in the civil revision by this Court in C.R.No. 240/03. The defendant of the said suit, however, did not comply with the said order and did not deposit the rent in accordance with the Page 1304 said order. Consequently their defence against ejectment was struck off. Learned Trial Court on appraisal of the evidences of the plaintiff and materials on record further held that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and that the landlady has got personal need of the suit premises, and that the partial eviction of the tenant shall not satisfy the need of the landlady. Learned Trial Court also found other issues in favour of the landlady and decreed the suit by a common judgment and decree passed in the aforementioned three suits.
5. The tenant then preferred three different appeals in the Court of the learned District Judge, Dhanbad almost on common grounds. The appeals were registered as T.A.Nos. 48/05, 49/05, 50/05. The said appeals were finally heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge-VIII Dhanbad by the impugned common judgment and decree. The lower Appellate Court, has also thoroughly discussed and considered all the facts evidences and materials on record and arrived at the finding that the landlady Shanti Devi has got right, title over the suit land and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that the tenant-appellant defaulted in payment of rent and that the landlady has got personal need of the suit premises. Lower Appellate Court thus concurred with ail the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the said appeals.
6. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Sr. counsel, as also Mr. Baban Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are vitiated in law as the Courts below while dealing with the suits for eviction under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act has erroneously entered into and decided the complicated issue of right, title of the plaintiff which was beyond their jurisdiction and outside the ambit of the eviction suits. Learned Counsel submitted that the question of title cannot be decided on the basis of the evidences adduced in the eviction suit which is a summary suit. He further submitted that the counter claim set up by the respondent Shanti Devi was barred and was not maintainable in law and the same should not have been entertained and decided by the Courts below, and the Courts below have committed serious error of law and the impugned judgments and decrees are vitiated in law.
7. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the counter claim in T. S (Counter Claim) No. 91/86 was a cross suit under the provisions of law and the same was tried jointly with eviction suits being T (E) S No. 101/93 & T (E) S No. 103/93. In the said counter claim Shanti Devi had prayed for a decree for declaration of her right, title and recovery of possession and it was within the competence of the learned Trial Court to decide the right, title as prayed for in the counter claim while deciding the issues which arose in the eviction suits. It has been further submitted that the learned Trial Court has thoroughly considered all the facts, evidences and materials on record and has arrived at the conclusion that Shanti Devi has got right, title over the suit property and that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the tenant-appellant has defaulted in payment of rent. Learned Trial Court also found that the landlady required the suit premises for her personal bonafide need. Learned Lower appellate Court also considered all the facts and evidences on record and concurred with the finding of facts of the learned Trial Court and in view of the said Page 1305 concurrent findings, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, I find that the learned Trial Court tried the three suits jointly, as the suits were between the same parties, subject matter of the suits were common and the suits were based on the same set of facts and pleadings. In T.S (Counter Claim) No. 91/86 the landlady Shanti Devi had prayed for a decree for declaration of her right, title and recovery of possession and in T (E) S No. 101/93 and T (E) S No. 103/93 she had sought a decree for eviction on the ground that the tenants are the defaulter in payment of rent and that she has got personal bonafide need of the suit premises. Under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6A, Sub-rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the counter claim has the same effect as a cross suit which enables the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit on the claim made in the suit as also in the counter claim. Under Sub-rule 4 of Rule 6A such counter claim is treated as a plaint and it is governed by the rules applicable to the plaint. Sub-rule 6D of Order VIII provides that even if the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed, the counter claim may nevertheless be proceeded with. Learned Trial Court while deciding the issue arising out of the counter claim has come to the finding that the said Shanti Devi has got right, title and interest over the suit property. While deciding Eviction Suit Nos. T (E) S Nos. 101/93 & 103/93, learned Trial Court considered and decided the issues of relationship of landlord and tenant, default and personal necessity, after thorough appraisal of all the facts, evidences and materials on record, in favour of the plaintiff-landlady and decreed the suits including the counter claim. Learned lower Appellate Court has also elaborately dealt with the facts, evidences and materials on record and considered the grounds taken by the appellant and on thorough scrutiny thereof concurred with the findings of learned Trial Court and dismissed the said appeals by the impugned common judgment and decree. In my considered view, the Courts below have not committed any error in deciding and disposing of the said three suits and appeals, and since the issue of title arose in T. S (Counter Claim) No. 91/86, it was well within their competence to enter into and decide the said issue on the basis of the materials and evidences on record along with other issues of the eviction suits. Both the Courts have arrived at concurred findings of facts in favour of the landlady-respondent. I, find no illegality or error in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided in these appeals, in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction.
9. These second appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.