Keshev Rao vs Vinod Kumar Tiwari

The appellant/original defendant has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rehli, District Sagar on 29.10.2014 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.36-A/2011 allowing the appeal filed by the present respondent/plaintiff before it and decreeing the suit and reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Rehli on 18.8.2011 in Civil Suit No.11-A/2010, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff trust against the present appellant for eviction of tenant and getting vacant possession of the suit shop (one room), arrears of rent and damages was dismissed.

Undisputedly, the appellant is a tenant in the suit accommodation for non-residential purpose, though the appellant has disputed the landlordship of the present respondent. In this order, appellant is being referred as the defendant and respondent is being referred as plaintiff hereinafter.

The plaintiff trust through its Mohattamkar Mahant Ramcharandas Bairagi had filed a suit on pleadings that it is a religious trust whose temples and shops are situated in Ward No.13 of Rehli town. The defendant is a tenant in one shop having shutter door in the temple''s campus on rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month and his month of tenancy begins from first day of the Gregorian calendar and ends with the last date of aforesaid month. The defendant is liable to pay rent of the suit accommodation to Mahant Ramcharandas Bairagi on behalf of the trust. The Additional District Judge, Rehli vide order dated 23.7.2009 passed in Civil M.J.C.No.2/2009 had held that the defendant is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.200/- to Ramcharandas Bairagi on behalf of the trust. After above mentioned order, on behalf of trust, Ramcharandas Bairagi intimated the defendant about above mentioned order and directed him to pay the monthly rent of the shop to him, but the defendant did not pay the rent. Thereafter, on behalf of the trust, a notice dated 25.11.2009 was sent by registered post to the defendant demanding arrears of rent, terminating his tenancy and directing to vacate the shop, but the defendant did not comply with the notice. Towards defendant, the rent of the suit shop is due from the month of August, 2009 till April, 2010. The committee of the plaintiff trust had authorized Mahant Ramcharandas Bairagi by proposal dated 5.11.2009 to file an eviction suit against the defendant. Thus, above mentioned reliefs were claimed by the suit.

The defendant in his written statement pleaded that the plaintiff is not owner and landlord of the disputed shop. The disputed shop and its adjoining other shops also neither constructed by the plaintiff trust nor it is owned by the plaintiff. These shops are public, which were constructed by a committee which was constituted by the general public for religious purpose. Rent of the shops including the disputed shop is being taken by the above mentioned committee and the defendant is an old tenant of the above mentioned committee. Shridev Radhakrishna Mandir remained neglected for a long period then above mentioned committee made its arrangement. Thereafter, dishonestly Mahant Ramcharandas Bairagi is falsely claiming the disputed shop to be plaintiff trust''s shop and is desirous to capture the disputed shop. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.

The issues were framed by the trial Court on the basis of pleadings of parties and evidence was also recorded by it. Before the trial Court, Mahant Ramcharandas (P.W.1) was examined and cross-examined as plaintiff''s witness. A certified copy of the above mentioned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Rehli in above mentioned Civil M.J.C. was exhibited as Ex.P/1, copy of the notice sent prior to filing of the suit was exhibited as Ex.P/2, its postal receipt as Ex.P/3, postal acknowledgement as Ex.P/4 and the proposal dated 5.11.2009 of the committee of the trust was exhibited as Ex.P/5. In rebuttal, no any witness was examined by the appellant before the trial Court. The trial Court recorded the findings in its judgment that the plaintiff remained unsuccessful in proving that the disputed suit-accommodation (shop) is property of the plaintiff trust and it was also not proved that the plaintiff is owner and landlord in relation to the disputed shop, thus the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

An appeal was filed by the present respondent before the Appellate Court with an application under Section 41 rule 27 of the CPC for bringing on record additional documentary evidence. Certified copy of a register of S.D.O. relating to properties of trusts was filed along with which, wherein the suit-accommodation (disputed shop) alongwith twelve other rooms (shops) were registered as plaintiff trust''s property in compliance to an order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, Rehli (S.D.O.). The above mentioned application relating to admitting additional documentary evidence was granted by the Appellate Court vide its judgment and on the basis of it, it was found proved that the suit accommodation (shop) is plaintiff trust''s property and the plaintiff trust is also landlord of the defendant. Thus, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed in toto against the appellant.

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Appellate Court did not afforded an opportunity to the defendant for filing evidence in rebuttal and erred in granting the above mentioned application filed in appeal before it, as the order of Registrar, Public Trust, Rehli was passed after passing of judgment and decree by the trial Court and the plaintiff had remained unsuccessful in proving the ownership and landlordship.

It is clear from the record of the Appellate Court that before the Additional District Judge''s Court, an appeal alongwith an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and certified copy of the register of the plaintiff trust''s property was filed, in which, it is recorded that in compliance to an order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the S.D.O. and Registrar, Public Trust, Rehli, thirteen pakka rooms situated on plaintiff trust''s land were recorded as plaintiff trust''s property. It is clear that before the Appellate Court, written reply of above mentioned application was filed by the original defendant, in which it was stated that in the register of the trust''s property, the recording of above mentioned rooms has been made against the legal procedure and the order of the S.D.O. and the Registrar, Public Trust, Rehli is illegal, but in this reply, it was not mentioned that the defendant is desirous of filing any additional documentary evidence in rebuttal. Thus, it could not be inferred that the Appellate Court did not grant any opportunity to the original defendant to file documentary evidence in the Appellate Court. It was clear that the defendant did not examine himself before the trial Court and in cross-examination of Mahant Ramcharandas (P.W.1), no any document was filed by the defendant regarding payment of rent by him to any committee or any other person. After the passing of the trial Court''s judgment, the S.D.O. Rehli as Registrar of Public Trust, Rehli has ordered that the suit accommodation (shop) alongwith twelve other adjoining shops be recorded as plaintiff trust''s property in register of the plaintiff trust.

The defendant even had not disclosed the name of the person to whom, he was paying the rent and in absence of any evidence by the defendant, the Appellate Court had not erred in granting the above mentioned application filed before it and in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

It appears from the certified copy of the order dated 23.7.2009 (Ex.P/1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Rehli in Civil M.J.C.No.2/2009 that Ramcharandas Bairagi as Mahant of the plaintiff trust had filed above mentioned M.J.C. under Section 27 of the M.P. Public Trust Act against Pawan Kumar and ten other persons, who were creating unauthorized interruption in trust''s matters and the Registrar, Public Trust, Rehli had also filed Civil M.J.C.No.3/2008 in the form of a reference to the above mentioned Court and by a common order dated 23.7.2009, both of the above M.J.C. cases were decided and it was directed that alongwith present trustee Mahant Ramcharandas Bairagi, three other persons also be appointed as trustees for proper management of the relating temples and trust''s property. It appears from that order that after the death of previous Mahant of the relating temples and trust, some persons including Pawan Kumar and others have formed a committee and they were conducting the activities of the Mandirs and trust and the claim of Ramcharandas Bairagi as Mahant was being opposed by Pawan Kumar and others. It appears that the appellant took advantage of the dispute between Mahant and rival committee and did not pay rent to anyone. The dispute between Mahant Ramcharandas Bairagi and the alleged committee of independent persons was decided by the Court of Additional District Judge and later on, the suit shop alongwith twelve other shops has been recorded as property of plaintiff in plaintiff trust''s register. Admittedly, suit shop is situated in temple''s campus. The appellant had not challenged his capacity of a tenant. Thus, it is clear that the learned Appellate Court had properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence available on record and had not committed any illegality and irregularity in decreeing the plaintiff''s suit.

In view of aforesaid discussion, I have not found any substance or circumstance in the matter giving rise to any question of law rather than substantial question of law and consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.