2025:JHHC:10188 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 160 of 2024 Bijay Kumar Gupta, aged about 58 years, son of late Jagdish Prasad Gupta, C/o M/s Gupta Hosiery T.G. Road, P.O. and P.S.-Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj ………………….Appellant … Versus…. Rajesh Choudhary, son of late Nathmal Choudhary, resident of T.G. Road, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj …… Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Sugandha Khalkho, Advocate For the Respondent : ………. 07/Dated: 03/04/2025 Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.05.2024 and the decree dated 11.06.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 01/2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj has been pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the judgement dated 20.01.2022 and decree dated 02.02.2022 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 19 of 2011 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Sahibganj. 3. As per judgment of the learned trial court as well as first appellate court the case of the plaintiff and defendant is as follows:- The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit premises with a garment shop in the building possessed by the defendants. The defendant Bijay Kumar Gupta is a tenant of the plaintiff with respect to the shop premises situated in the building on a monthly rental of Rs. 1100/-, The defendant is a tenant from the plaintiff's parent's life time. It was alleged that the rent of Rs. 1100/- of the suit premises for the month of April 2010 was paid by the defendant on 04.05.2011 but the rent of the suit premises, for the 2025:JHHC:10188 2 month of May 2010 was not paid by the defendants. It was stated that the defendant has also not paid the rent for the months of May 2010 to July 2010 continuously for three months. The defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises as he has not paid rent for the months of May 2010 to July 2010, i.e. three months @ Rs. 1100/- per month and a total of Rs. 3300/- has became due. The plaintiff asked several times to pay the dues rent of schedule premises, but the defendant always pretended and avoid to pay the rent amount along with the arrears to the defendants. Lastly the plaintiff sent a pleader notice to the defendant to pay the dues amount of rental premises and vacate the schedule premises due to being defaulter and also for the personal necessity of the plaintiff as he wanted to provide that shop to his daughter for her livelihood. It was stated that the plaintiff has four daughters out of which two become adult. They want to do their personal business. Therefore, the schedule premises need to be vacated. The plaintiff has also revealed his personal necessity, to open a door for his convenience at the southern side of shop of the defendant and south east side of the plaintiff's wall to enter the house of the plaintiff. The defendant sent a reply to the notice dated 17.05.2011 through his lawyer to the plaintiff, in which he has admitted his tenancy since 1985, but denied any dues of rent on his part. By the reply dated 21.04.2011 the defendant denied all the alleged averments of the plaintiff. As per plaintiff, the cause of action of the suit arose on 1 July 2010 when the defendant became defaulter according to law. As the suit premises is situated within the jurisdiction of learned Court below hence the suit was filed for adjudication. The suit was valued at Rs. 13,200/- for the purpose of jurisdiction being the value of 12 months of rent @ Rs. 1100/- per month and the suit was also valued at Rs. 14,300/- for the purpose of realization of arrears of rent. Accordingly the court fee was paid, and the suit was filed and admitted. 4. The case of the defendant/appellant is that the defendant contested 2025:JHHC:10188 3 the suit by filing his W/S and raised several legal pleas regarding non- maintainability of the suit. It was stated that the suit as framed is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit and the cause of action, as alleged, is imaginary and concocted. It was admitted that the tenancy was created in favour of the defendant in the year 1985 by the late adoptive father of the plaintiff and the rent was settled at Rs.450/- per month according to the months of English Calendar. The said rent was enhanced from time to time and last paid rent was Rs. 1100/- P.M. It was further stated that the defendant has never defaulted in payment of rent. He used to make payment of rent of the suit premises in the first week of every succeeding month. It was stated that the rent of April, 2010 was paid on 04.05.2011. The rent receipt granted by the plaintiff in token of payment of rent for the month of April, 2010 is dated 04.05.2010. Thereafter the rent of the suit premises was paid regularly to the plaintiff from May, 2010 to March, 2011 each and every month but no receipt was granted by the plaintiff at the time of accepting payment of rent. It was further stated that a pleader's notice dated 21.04.2011 was sent by the plaintiff asking him to vacate on the ground of being defaulter. The defendant sent his reply to the said notice through his lawyer. It was further stated that the plaintiff was in a habit of granting rent receipt for 5-6 months at one time, though he used to collect rent of the suit premises from the defendant in each and every month regularly. The rent paid for the period from May, 2010 to March, 2011 has already been entered in the books of account, on the day, it was paid. Return for the assessment year 2011-12 covering the period from 01-04-2010 to 31.03.2011 has already been submitted to the Income Tax Authority, in which shop rent amounting Rs. 13,020.00 has been shown to have paid. It was further stated that the plea of personal necessity is a sheer pretense of the plaintiff. He has no bonafide requirement of the suit premises as his daughters are pursuing their carriers. It was further stated that the 2025:JHHC:10188 4 defendant has no other source of income except the suit premises from where the defendant earns the bread for his family members. In view of the submissions the suit was prayed to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 5. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is law point involved in this second appeal in view of that appeal may kindly be admitted. He submits that both the courts have not discussed the evidences and inspite of that decree has been passed which is against the mandate of law. He further submits that bonafide personal necessity was not proved before the learned court inspite of that the learned courts have passed order. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 11 (1) (c) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 and submits that bonafide has to be proved. According to him even Section 11 (1) (d) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 has not been appreciated in correct perspective and inspite of payment of rent it was wrongly held by both the courts that rent was due for three months and in view of that law point is involved with regard to Section 11 (1) (c) and (d) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. He submits that both the courts have erred on these law points in view of that this second appeal may kindly be admitted on the substantial question of law. 6. The Title (Eviction) Suit No. 19 of 2011 was instituted for eviction of suit property mentioned in schedule A of the plaint. The building situated in T.G. road bearing holding no. 37, ward no. 12 of mouza Sahibganj Kakrotiya, J.B. no. 565 in encircled by road in north sided, municipal state in east side house of the plaintiff in west side. 7. The said title suit was decided by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Sahibganj by judgment dated 20.01.2022 whereby the learned court has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved with the said judgment, the appellant herein moved before the First Appellate Court in 2025:JHHC:10188 5 Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2022 which has been decided by judgment dated 31.05.2024 whereby the learned First Appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned trial court. 8. The learned trial court has framed five issues to decide the suit. The learned trial court has appreciated the documentary evidences as well as pleadings of both the parties and has found that the landlord and tenant relationship is not disputed in view of the fact that the plaintiff has stated in para 2 and 3 of the plaint and in para 4 of the written statement the defendant has also admitted. In view of that the learned court appreciating further exhibits has come to the conclusion that the landlord and tenant relationship has been proved. Learned court has further appreciated the arguments and considered the exhibits and found that the plaintiff is having four unmarried daughters and for their existence said shop was required and in view of that the learned court has come to the conclusion that personal necessity has been proved. Nothing contradictory has been shown by the appellant herein to suggest that bonafide personal necessity was not there. The learned trial court further appreciated the Exhibit B series which are rent receipts for the month of April, 2010 and found that for the one month two rent receipts have been issued as Exhibit B and B/2 for the month of April, 2010 and the defendant has not disclosed before the learned court how two rent receipts have been issued and in view of that the learned court doubted the evidences of the said exhibits. The learned court has further found that even through oral evidence the defendant has failed to establish the fact that for three consecutives months (May, June and July, 2010) has actually been paid to the plaintiff. In view of that the learned court has found that rider in the light of section 11 (1) (d) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act is proved and thereafter the learned court has passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. 9. The First Appellate Court framed points to decide the appeal. One of 2025:JHHC:10188 6 the ground was before the First Appellate Court that suit was maintainable before the S.D.O. however, it has been decided by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I in view of that it is against the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act , 2000. The learned First Appellate Court has found that with regard to said Act the cut off date is 15.04.2015 as notified by the notification of Urban Development and Housing Department vide gazette notification issued by the State Government dated 16.05.2016 in view of said gazette it is clear that all subsequent proceedings arising out of order/judgment shall be governed under the new Act and not the previously instituted proceedings and the suit was of the year, 2011 in view of that argument of the appellant was negated by the First Appellate Court. There is no perversity in the said finding of the learned First Appellate Court. 10. Learned First Appellate Court has further appreciated the arguments and evidences with regard to compliance of Section 11 (1) (c) and 11 (1) (d) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 1982/2000 and the learned First Appellate Court has found that the defendant/appellant has produced exhibit B series but among these the rent payment receipts of the month of May, June and July, 2010 is not there and the case of the respondent/plaintiff was constant of due rent for the month of May to July, 2010 and in view of that the learned First Appellate Court has found that requirement of 11 (1) (d) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act has been fulfilled. So far the personal necessity is concerned, the learned First Appellate Court has considered the evidences of plaintiff. Plaintiff witness nos. 3 and 4 have supported the case regarding personal necessity as pleaded in the plaint and in cross examination the fact that daughters of the plaintiff are still unemployed, could not be dislodged by the defendant and in view of that personal necessity has also been proved by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned First Appellate Court. 11. Thus, both the courts were constant on the facts and concurrent 2025:JHHC:10188 7 findings are there. 12. Second appeal can be filed only if the substantial question of law is involved. It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at and in this regard reference may be made to the case of “ Kondiba Dagadu Kadam V. Savitribai Sopan Gujar reported in (1999) 3 SCC 722 wherein para 3 to 6 it has been held as under:- “3. After the amendment a second appeal can be filed only if a substantial question of law is involved in the case. The memorandum of appeal must precisely state the substantial question of law involved and the High Court is obliged to satisfy itself regarding the existence of such a question. If satisfied, the High Court has to formulate the substantial question of law involved in the case. The appeal is required to be heard on the question so formulated. However, the respondent at the time of the hearing of the appeal has a right to argue that the case in the court did not involve any substantial question of law. The proviso to the section acknowledges the powers of the High Court to hear the appeal on a substantial point of law, though not formulated by it with the object of ensuring that no injustice is done to the litigant where such a question was not formulated at the time of admission either by mistake or by inadvertence. 5. It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence. 6. If the question of law termed as a substantial question stands already decided by a larger Bench of the High Court concerned or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court, its merely wrong application on the facts of the case would not be termed to be a substantial question of law. Where a point of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any factual format, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of the facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the contents of the document cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. But where it is found that the first appellate court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal, treating it as a substantial question of law. Where the first appellate court is shown to have exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. This Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Ramkrishna Govind Morey [(1976) 1 SCC 803 : AIR 1976 SC 830] held that whether the trial court should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently is not a question of law justifying interference.” 13. In view of above findings of the learned courts, the Court finds 2025:JHHC:10188 8 that there is no perversity in the judgments of the learned trial court as well as learned first appellate court. There is concurrent findings of two courts. 14. In view of the above discussions the Court finds that what has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to admission of the second appeal is not made out. 15. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis there is no perversity in the judgment of both the courts and in absence of perversity, sitting under section 100 of the C.P.C., the High Court is not required to admit this second appeal in absence of any substantial question of law and accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 16. Mr. Banerjee, submits that six months time may kindly be allowed to vacate the premises. 17. In view of such submission, the appellant is hereby granted three months time to vacate the premises subject to filing usual undertaking within period of two weeks on affidavit of the appellant to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises of the landlord before the learned court. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.