Rupa Pathak vs Rajni Billaiya And Others

The learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission.

This appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 27.08.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2014 filed by the present appellant against the respondents for eviction on the ground of 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act, 1961').

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the First Appellate Court has not appreciated the facts of the case in proper manner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court had properly appreciated the facts of the case and also evidence adduced by the parties and arrived at conclusion that notice was issued to the defendant/appellant who was tenent under Section 12(1) (a) and has found that on the basis of material available and in absence of any written agreement between the parties, it was highly probable that the tenanted premise was rented out on rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month instead Rs.2000/- as demanded by the plaintiff. The trial Court has found that as per the demand raised by the land-lord, the rent for the period of six months must have been deposited by the tenant and it is also observed by the trial Court that the defendant never agreed to pay Rs.70/- per month towards water charges, therefore, the well reasoned finding based upon the solid foundation has wrongly been reversed by the First Appellate Court, hence, the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court has been said to be erroneous, based upon perverse finding and therefore, is sought to be quashed.

Arguments heard and record perused.

From the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, it is clear that the finding given in paragraph17 regarding agreed rent is based upon surmises and conjuncture and further in paragraph-20, the trial Court presumed that the conduct of the plaintiff that the defendant must have deposited the unpaid rent of the period for which demand had been raised by the landlord.

Whereas from perusal of judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, it is clear that the evidence adduced by the parties was re-appreciated and then it is observed that in absence of any written receipt regarding payment of rent, the defendant had every right to deposit the same before the Rent Controlling Authority, if he had any doubt about the demand made by the landlord. The Appellate Court taking note of the statement of the defendant (tenant) has also found that she had sent the rent for May, 2010 through money-order but the landlord has refused to accept the same, but she has not stated that after refusal, she could have deposited the same before the Rent Controlling Authority and she had also not stated that she was not aware of the procedure available for depositing the rent if the land-lord refuses to accept the same. In paragraph-21 of the judgment, the First Appellate Court has observed that the defendant has admitted this fact that she received notice and she could not follow the provisions of Section 12(a) and 13 of the Act, 1961. She had not specifically stated in the evidence that she has been following the provisions of Section 13 ofthe Act, 1961 and depositing the rent according to the requirement of the said provision.

The finding given by the First Appellate Court is very specific and based upon the statement of defendant, whereas the finding given the by the trial Court is based upon presumption. The decree cannot be passed on surmises and conjuncture. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and I am fully convinced with the finding and observation made by the First Appellate Court. As such, in my opinion, this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and it is hereby dismissed.