M. Square Public School Committee Through Its Manager Smt. Tara Bisht And Another vs Jagdish Cahndra Pangriya

Subhash Upadhyay, J

The present Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2023, passed by JSCC/District Judge, Pithoragarh in SCC Case No. 02 of 2018, Jagdish Chandra Pangriya vs. M. Square Public School and another, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/landlord for eviction of defendants/tenants and recovery of rent has been decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

As per the case of the revisionists, as set out in the revision, the respondent/plaintiff filed SCC Suit No. 02 of 2018, Jagdish Chandra Pangriya vs. M. Squaire Public School, before the Judge, Small Cause Court/District Judge, Pithoragarh, for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiff/respondent claimed that he is the owner/landlord of the suit property, wherein the revisionists/respondents were the tenant on the ground floor and first floor; that the ground floor and the front portion of the first floor of the rented premises was used for running of a school in the name of M. Square Public School and the rear part of the first floor was used for residential purpose by the revisionists/respondents. The said property was rented in the month of November, 2006 @ of Rs. 20,500/- per month and the tenancy was on month to month basis. As the respondent/plaintiff was in need of the suit property for settlement of his son and his family, as such, a request was made to the revisionist for vacating the premises however, when such request was not accepted by the revisionist then a legal notice dated 15.07.2017 was sent for termination of tenancy and for payment of arrears of rent and electricity dues. The revisionists/respondents filed written statement and admitted the tenancy, however, disputed the other submissions made in the plaint. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent on 17.10.2023 against the revisionists and the said order has been challenged in the present Civil Revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionists, on the basis of the written statement filed before the learned Trial Court submitted that there were two tenancies on the suit property. The revisionists family was residing in the rear side of the first floor at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month and the rent was paid in cash whereas the school was run on the ground floor and in the front portion of the first floor and the said tenancy was on a yearly basis, for which, the rent of Rs. 20,500/- was paid by the revisionists; that the fact that the rent was received after the legal notice was sent would mean that the tenancy continued; that the plaintiff was not in need of the rented accommodation for his son and the need of the revisionists/tenants was genuine as he was running the school and shifting of students would have caused irreparable loss to the tenant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff was in need of the rented accommodation to start business for his son and to settle his family and the contention of the revisionists that he was in need of rented accommodation for running the school is belied as the school was shifted to a different place. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced came to the conclusion that the tenancy was for the entire rented accommodation and was a tenancy on month to month basis and the revisionists in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination himself admitted that there was no rent agreement to demonstrate that the tenancy was on yearly basis. Moreover, the revisionists was also not able to prove that the rent of Rs. 3000/- was separately paid for residential accommodation apart from the rent of Rs. 20,500/-. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the revisionists, who had examined himself as DW1, had deliberately not filed a copy of his cross-examination held on 12.09.2023, wherein he had admitted the fact that the school which was being run in the rented accommodation has been shifted. The said cross- examination was filed by the respondent along with the stay vacation application and the counter affidavit. The said counter affidavit was filed on 20th October, 2024 and the revisionists took time to file objection to the stay vacation application and the counter affidavit on 20.11.2024, but no objection was filed to controvert the said fact. He thus submits that the sole ground for not vacating the rented accommodation, as stated by the revisionists, that the studies of the students would be affected, was not available to the revisionists on the basis of the specific admission made in the cross-examination that the school has been shifted. He thus submits that the finding of facts recorded by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced and on the cross-examination of the revisionists, wherein he admitted that the school has been shifted cannot be disturbed and there is no perversity in the said finding.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The relationship of tenant and landlord between the revisionist and respondent is not disputed in the present case. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground of bona fide need. The contention of the revisionist that the tenancy was separate for residential purpose and for running the school was considered by the learned Trial Court and on the basis of the written statement filed by the parties and the evidence led, a clear finding of fact was recorded that there was only one tenancy of the entire premises @ Rs. 20,500/- per month.

The Court has gone through the records and is of the considered view that there is no perversity in the said finding. The fact that the revisionist had shifted the students from the rented accommodation was also considered by the learned Trial Court and the said fact is also borne out from the cross-examination of the revisionist/DW1, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. The revisionists for the reasons best known to them had not filed the said document with the revision nor did they chose to file any objection to the said stay Vacation application filed along with counter affidavit despite being given an opportunity to rebut the same. Para 3 and 4 of the cross-examination of the Revisionist reads as under:

"3. मैने वादी के नोटिस का उत्तर एवं प्रतिवाद पत्र, शपथ पत्र में देते हुये लिà¤-ा है कि मकान की किराएदारी वार्षिक है लेकिन मैने किराएदारी वार्षिक होने के संबंध में कोई किरायानामा रजिस्टर नही कराया है। जब मैं पहले विवादित भवन में पहले बच्चे पढाता था तब मेरा विद्यालय उत्तराà¤-ंड सरकार के शिक्षा बोर्ड के तहत चलता था। à¤-ुद कहा कि मैने वादी की परेशानी के कारण वर्तमान में छात्रो को वहां सेदूसरी जà¤-ह à¤...स्थायी तौर पर शिफ्ट कर दिया है।

वर्तमान में मेरा विद्यालय शनि मंदिर पांडे à¤-ांव के निकट à¤-्राम कुजौली को जाने वाले सडक के किनारे चल रहा है। à¤-ुद कहा कि यह व्यवस्था à¤...स्थायी है। चंडाक नामक स्थान में मेरा विद्यालय का भवन वर्ष 2015 में बन à¤-या था। चंडाक पर भी मैं à¤...पने छात्रो को 2015 से पढ़ा रहा हूं। चंडाक पर कक्षा नर्सरी से कक्षा 10 तक की क्लास चल रही है।"

Thus, the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the revisionist/respondent has shifted the students from rented premises and was not in a need of rented accommodation also does not suffer from any perversity. The counsel for the respondent also submitted that in the Execution case pending before the Court below, the revisionists have given an undertaking to vacate the premise, however, after dismissal of the revision for non- prosecution, now another counsel has appeared on his behalf and has argued the matter. The Court has not dwelled into the said aspect and has heard the parties and on the basis of the material on record, is of the considered view that there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court with regard to the need of the respondent/plaintiff. More particularly, due to the fact that the revisionists themselves have admitted that the school has been shifted from the rented accommodation.

In view of the above, the Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order dated 17.02.2023, passed by the JSCC/District Judge, Pithoragarh in SCC Case No. 02 of 2018, Jagdish Chandra Pangriya vs. M. Square Public School and another. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.