2025:JHHC:34853 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 37 of 2012 Smt. Dayamanti Devi (Deleted and substituted v.o.d. 18.10.2022) 1 (a) Shambhu Nandan Kumar aged 59 years 1 (b) Krishna Nandan Kumar, aged 53 years Both s/o late Prakash Kumar and late Dayamanti Devi, R/o Harindanga Bazar, Pakur, Ward No.5/B, Pakur Municipality, P.O. – Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), Sub-Division – Pakur, District Pakur … … Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar Rajak (Deleted and substituted v.o.d. 12.11.2025) (a) Draupadi Devi, w/o late Rajesh Kumar Rajak; (b) Ranjeet Lal Rajak, S/o late Rajesh Kumar Rajak; (c) Manjeet Lal Rajak, S/o Late Rajesh Kumar Rajak; (d) Sanjeet Lal, S/o late Rajesh Kumar Rajak; (e) Prakash Lal Rajak, S/o late Rajesh Kumar Rajak; (f) Rita Rajak, D/o late Rajesh Kumar Rajak (g) Renu Rajak, D/o late Rajesh Kumar Rajak All residents of Tantipada, P.O. & P.S. – Pakur, District - Pakur 2. Shio Nandan Kumar, aged about 62 years 3. Hari Nandan Kumar, aged 55 years, both S/o late Prakash Kumar and late Dayamanti Devi Both r/o Harindanga Bazar, Ward no.5/B, Pakur Municipality, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District Pakur … … Defendants/Appellants/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate --- 26/18.11.2025 This Second appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 10.02.2012 (decree singed on 15.02.2012) passed by learned District Judge I, Pakur in Title (Eviction) Appeal No.1 of 2007 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has set aside the judgement dated 20.12.2006 (decree dated 05.01.2007) passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.34 of 2003 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Pakur. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 2. The learned counsel has also indicated that plaintiff and the defendant have expired and they have been substituted. The suit was filed seeking eviction on account of default in payment of rent. 2025:JHHC:34853 2 3. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 05.04.2018 framing the following substantial question of law: “Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff respondent has failed to prove that she has ever communicated the change of ownership of the suit property to the defendant – appellant is perverse and is liable to be set aside?” The plaint. 4. As per the plaint the plaintiff had purchased the property in which suit property is situated named ‘Goenka Niwas’ from its owner namely Madan Mohan Goenka by virtue of registered sale deed no.792 dated 11.07.2000 and upon purchase the plaintiff named the property as ‘Kumar Niwash’. He has submitted that as per the plaint, the suit property is part and parcel of ‘Kumar Niwash’ which was originally let out to the defendant by the vendor of the plaintiff, namely, Madan Mohan Goenka, on a monthly rent of Rs.450/- where the defendant was running a dry-cleaning business in the name and style of “Band Box Dry Cleaners”. 5. It has also been averred in the plaint that after execution of the registered sale deed on 11.07.2000 in favour of the plaintiff , the original owner namely, Madan Mohan Goenka, served a letter under certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000 through his manager – cum – general power of attorney Sri Satya Narayan Dutta to the defendant informing him about the transfer of the building to the plaintiff and further requested the defendant to make payment of monthly rent from 11.07.2000 onwards to the new landlady namely Dayamanti Devi (the plaintiff) , but the defendant failed to make payment and did not even respond to the said letter, either to the previous owner namely, Madan Mohan Goenka, or to the plaintiff. 6. It was case in the plaint that thereafter, the plaintiff sent a registered letter dated 12.10.2000 upon the defendant by making a reference to the earlier letter dated 12.07.2000 and requested the defendant to make payment of rent but the defendant refused to accept the registered letter, which returned back to the plaintiff. It was further 2025:JHHC:34853 3 averred in the plaint that after refusal of the registered A/D letter dated 12.10.2000, the defendant had come to the plaintiff several times and requested the plaintiff as well as her son Harinandan Kumar, who used to collect the rent from other tenants in the same building on behalf of his mother, for some time for making payment of arrears of rent but the defendant never paid the rent to the plaintiff till the date of filing of the suit. The specific case of plaintiff was that the defendant has defaulted in payment of monthly rent since 11.07.2000 to June 2003 for about 37 months in spite of several demands verbally and through letter and therefore the defendant was liable to be evicted on account of default in payment of rent. The written Statement 7. A written statement was filed by the defendant opposing the suit alleging non-joinder of necessary party on the ground that the original landlord was not made party in the proceedings. It was also asserted that Madan Mohan Goenka had other brothers, but they had not executed the registered sale deed, and accordingly, the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff itself was defective. It was asserted that the suit property belonged to one Champa Devi Goenka, which was let out to the defendant on 19.01.1973 on monthly rent of Rs.60/- only and the rent was lastly increased up to Rs.450/- per month and such increase was under coercion, and therefore, the defendant is entitled for adjustment of the excess amount paid. It was asserted that Champa Devi Goenka has three sons including Madan Mohan Goenka and other two sons were still alive and hence the title of the plaintiff is itself defective since the plaintiff has purchased the property only from Madan Mohan Goenka. 8. It was asserted that Sri Satya Narayan Dutta, the manager of Madan Mohan Goenka and his brothers, used to realize rent from the defendant and under the conspiracy, though they received rent in the month of July 2000 for the month of June 2000, but did not grant rent receipt on one pretext or the other and started compelling the defendant to enter into fresh tenancy for a period of 11 months in the name of the son of the defendant to which the defendant did not agree 2025:JHHC:34853 4 and said Madan Mohan Goenka and his brothers refused to accept the rent from the defendant. Consequently, the defendant started remitting rent to Madan Mohan Goenka through money order till the month of October, 2003 but Madan Mohan Goenka has been refusing to receive the rent so remitted. 9. The defendant denied the allegation that the information regarding change of ownership was given to him under the certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000. He also asserted that the registered letter with A/D dated 12.10.2000 giving reference to the letter dated 12.07.2000 was never handed over by the postal peon to the defendant and as such there was no question of refusing the said letter and the endorsement of the postal peon of ‘refusal’ was managed by the plaintiff in connivance with the postal peon. 10. It was asserted that the rent of the suit premises was remitted by the defendant to Madan Mohan Goenka for entire period since 11.07.2000 to June 2003 including the month of July, August and September, 2003 as he was unaware of any change in ownership and had not received valid information regarding it. The defendant stated that he only became aware of the change after receiving notice of the present suit, following which he remitted the rent for the suit premises to the plaintiff for the month of September and October 2003. Issues before the trial court. 11. The following issues were framed by the learned trial court: “(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has plaintiff valid cause of action? (iii) Whether there is relationship between plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant? (iv) Whether defendant is defaulter in the eye of law? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief?” Evidences placed on record by the parties. 12. The plaintiff had examined altogether 8 witnesses including Satyanarayan Dutta as P.W. 3, who was general power of attorney holder and also the person who used to collect the rent on behalf of the original owner of the property namely Madan Mohan Goenka, who 2025:JHHC:34853 5 was the vendor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been examined, but her husband has been examined as P.W. 8. The postal peon was examined as P.W. 7. The original sale deed dated 11.07.2000 has been marked exhibit 1. 13. The following documents were exhibited: “Exhibit 1 – Original sale deed no.792 dated 11.07.2000 executed by Madan Mohan Goenka in favour of Dayamanti Devi the plaintiff. Exhibit 2 – Notice dated 11.07.2000. Exhibit 2/A – Under certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000 Exhibit 3 – Notice dated 12.10.2000 sent by Dayamanti Devi to Rajesh Kumar Razak the defendant. Exhibit 3/a – Acknowledgement Exhibit 3/b – Envelope Exhibit 3/c – endorsement of envelope Exhibit 4 – Municipal tax receipt dated 17.12.2004 Exhibit 5 – Government rent receipt Exhibit 6 – Original Special power of Attorney dated 03.09.2004 executed by Dayamanti Devi.” 14. The defendant examined altogether 5 witnesses including the defendant himself as D.W. 5 and his sons D.W. 3 namely Ranjit lal Rajak. The following documents were exhibited by the defendant: “Exhibit A : Written statement filed on behalf of the defendant in this case. Exhibit B to B/37: Series of postal receipts. Exhibit C to C/38: Series of money order acknowledgement. Exhibit D to D/169: Series of house rent receipts.” Findings of the learned trial court. 15. The learned trial court after considering the materials recorded in paragraph 22 of the trial court judgment that there was valid information to the defendant regarding change of ownership of the suit property, but the defendant failed to pay the house rent to the plaintiff. 16. The learned trial court thereafter considered the point as to whether there was valid remittance of house rent to the plaintiff or not 2025:JHHC:34853 6 and whether the defendant validly remitted the house rent since July 2000 to the original landlord Madan Mohan Goenka or Dayamanti Devi, the plaintiff. 17. The learned trial court recorded the finding in paragraph 27 that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the defendant is a defaulter in making payment of house rent and ultimately the suit was decreed. Point of determination of the learned 1st appellate court. 18. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for consideration: “1. Whether the plaintiff respondent is the owner of suit room and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff respondent and defendant appellant? 2. Whether the defendant appellant has defaulted in paying the rent to the plaintiff respondent? 3. Whether the plaintiff respondent is entitled for any relief?” Findings of the 1st appellate court. 19. The learned 1st appellate court held that Madan Mohan Goenka had passed the title and ownership to the plaintiff through Exhibit 1. The learned 1st appellate court observed that the case was brought by the purchaser Dayamanti Devi and not by Madan Mohan Goenka. The learned court in paragraphs 11 and 12 held that the defendant had clearly averred that he had no knowledge of the change of ownership till the filing of the case and the plaintiff had failed to prove this fact that the defendant was having knowledge and the defendant was tendering amount to the vendor of the plaintiff and ultimately, held that the defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent to the plaintiff. Arguments of the Appellants. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed the evidence of P.W. 3 and submitted that P.W. 3 has clearly deposed that he had written a letter dated 11.10.2000 under certificate of posting and on behalf of Madan Mohan Goenka, the original owner, to the defendant. He has exhibited both the letter as well as the postal receipt regarding 2025:JHHC:34853 7 sending the letter under certificate of posting as Exhibit 2 and 2/a. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no suggestion or cross- examination on behalf of the defendant alleging that Exhibits 2 and 2/a are forged and fabricated, and therefore, the evidence of P.W. 3, so far as Exhibit 2 and 2/a are concerned, remained uncontroverted. 21. He has placed the evidence of P.W. 7, the postal peon, who has deposed that he had taken the registered letter to the defendant from the post office on 13.10.2000 but the defendant refused to accept the registered letter and he has written on the envelope that the defendant refused to accept the letter and his signature on the postal letter with the enforcement is marked exhibit 3/c. He has been working in Pakur post office for last 8 years. The learned counsel has submitted that this witness has been cross-examined and during cross examination, it has come that he did not make the endorsement then and there when the letter was offered to the defendant, but there is no cross-examination with regard to refusal of the defendant to take the registered letter. 22. The learned counsel next refers to the evidence of D.W. 5 and submitted that affidavited evidence in chief was filed by D.W. 5 under order 18 Rule 4 CPC. He has submitted that he has reiterated statements made in written statement. By referring to the letter of D.W. 5, who is defendant himself, the learned counsel has submitted that this witness has not stated that the documents produced by the plaintiff were forged and fabricated, nor he has proved the remittance of rent to the plaintiff for the month of September and October 2003 which he had claimed so in the written statement. 23. The learned counsel has submitted that the suit was instituted on 29.07.2003 and the defendant had taken a specific stand in the written statement that as soon as he came to know that the suit was filed, the defendant had remitted the rent by money order to the plaintiff for the month of September and October, 2003 but no such evidence was produced by the defendant nor any such statement has been made. Rather, he has stated that the case was filed in 2003 and thereafter the defendant has been making payment of rent by depositing rent in the court after 2003. 2025:JHHC:34853 8 24. He has in particular referred to the cross-examination of D.W. 5 paragraphs 13 and 14. By referring to the evidence of cross- examination of D.W. 5 at paragraph 13, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defendant has named a number of tenants in the same premises and has stated that they have been paying rent to the plaintiff and they have all been tenants under the previous land lord namely, Madan Mohan Goenka. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 14 of his evidence that the witness has acknowledged that after purchase Dayamanti Devi, has been residing in the house along with her husband and children. He has also stated that the D.W-5 did not know that other adjoining tenants were giving rent to Dayamanti Devi and at the same time, he has denied the receipt of registered notice dated 11.07.2000 said to have been sent by Dayamanti Devi and also denied to have refused to accept the registered notice. Arguments of the Respondents. 25. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that so far as registered letter said to have been issued by Dayamanti Devi on 12.10.2000 is concerned, the letter has not been proved inasmuch as the envelope was never opened before the court and the contents of the envelope was not proved. He submits that Dayamanti Devi was not examined to say that what letter she had sent to the defendant through registered post. The learned counsel submits that once the content of the letter is not proved, the refusal of the said letter by the defendant has no value in the eyes of law. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the letter dated 11.07.2000 sent by Satya Narayan Dutta (P.W. 3) on behalf of the original landlord Madan Mohan Goenka is concerned, it is for the court to consider the same under the facts and circumstances of the case. Findings of this Court 26. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had purchased the property named ‘Goenka Niwas’ from Madan Mohan Goenka by virtue of registered sale deed no.792 dated 11.07.2000. Upon purchase, the property was named as ‘Kumar Niwas’. It is further not in dispute that 2025:JHHC:34853 9 the purchased property has a number of shops and the suit property is just one shop in which the defendant was the tenant. It is also not in dispute that the defendant was a tenant under Madan Mohan Goenka, who had sold the property to the plaintiff. It is further not in dispute that Madan Mohan Goenka had his manager-cum-general power of attorney namely Satya Narayan Dutta, who used to collect rent from all the shops including the suit shop . It has come in the evidence of D.W. 5 that there were a number of tenants in the same premises and has stated that others have been paying rent to the plaintiff and they have all been tenants under the previous land lord namely, Madan Mohan Goenka. It has also come in his evidence that after purchase, Dayamanti Devi (plaintiff) has been residing in the purchased house along with her husband and children. However, D.W-5 denied knowledge that other adjoining tenants were giving rent to the plaintiff and at the same time denied the receipt of registered notice dated 11.07.2000 said to have been sent by Dayamanti Devi and also denied to have refused to accept the registered notice. 27. The plaintiff asserted that after purchase of the property through registered deed, the original owner namely Madan Mohan Goenka served a letter which was sent by certificate of posting on 12.07.2000 through his manager cum general power of attorney Satya Narayan Dutta to the defendant informing him about the transfer of building to the plaintiff and requesting the defendant to make payment of monthly rent from 11.07.2000 onwards to the plaintiff. 28. Sri Satya Narayan Dutta, has been examined as P.W. 3 in the present case, who has fully supported the fact that he had sent a letter under certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000 to the defendant and the notice dated 11.07.2000 sent by him has been exhibited as exhibit 2 and the certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000 has been exhibited as exhibit 2/a. The defendant in his written statement had denied the receipt of the letter sent by Satya Narayan Dutta (P.W. 3) but the cross-examination of P.W. 3 reveals that there is no suggestion during cross-examination alleging that Exhibits 2 and 2/a were forged and fabricated or that the letter was not properly addressed although, P.W. 2025:JHHC:34853 10 3 in cross-examination has stated that he does not have any proof of service of the letter under certificate of posting to the defendant. Thus, P.W. 3 had duly proved the letter dated 11.07.2000 and also proved its due dispatch by exhibiting the postal receipt of certificate of posting which were marked Exhibits 2 and 2/a. He has also stated in cross- examination that he had collected rent from the defendant till June 2000. The evidence of P.W. 3 was duly accepted by the learned trial court who observed that P.W. 3 had proved the letter dated 11.07.2000 and under certificate of posting dated 12.07.2000, which was marked Exhibits 2 and 2/a. 29. So far as P.W. 4 is concerned, he has produced a photocopy of the notice dated 12.10.2000 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant under the registered cover and had also stated that the writing on the A/D was that of P.W. 4 which he had dispatched to the defendant. The return envelope was 3/b. All the documents i.e. notice dated 12.10.2000, acknowledgement and envelope were marked as Exhibits 3, 3/a and 3/b respectively without any objection from the side of the defendant. There is no cross-examination of P.W. 4 in the line that P.W. 4 had not dispatched the letter through registered post which was marked Exhibit 3. In absence of such cross-examination, dispatch of notice dated 12.10.2000 through registered cover remained undisputed and failure to open the returned envelope in the court has no bearing in the matter. Moreover, the said documents were marked without any objection from the side of the defendant. P.W. 4 is the son of the plaintiff. The postal peon has been examined as P.W. 7, who has exhibited his endorsement on the return envelope and marked as Exhibit 3/c and has deposed that the defendant had refused to accept the registered letter. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that at the time of refusal to accept the letter, he had not taken any witness but he denied that he had not given the letter to the defendant, who refused to accept the letter. 30. This Court finds that the learned trial court had believed that evidence of P.W. 7, and has also taken into consideration that the defendant nowhere stated that the exhibits produced by the plaintiff 2025:JHHC:34853 11 were forged fabricated or created by the plaintiff for the purposes of the suit. 31. The learned trial court held that there was valid information to the defendant regarding change of ownership of the suit premises, but the defendant failed to pay the rent to the plaintiff. 32. The learned 1st appellate court rejected the evidence of P.W. 3 on the ground that except posting, there was no evidence on record to show that it ever reached its destination. 33. While considering the evidence of P.W. 4, the court recorded that Exhibit 3 was a photocopy of the notice said to have been sent by registered post on 12.10.2000 and it could be that the xerox copy of the original notice was not the same as that of the notice which was dispatched. The court also observed that the original notice appeared to be present in the envelope itself but it was never opened during the trial. The evidence of P.W. 7 was also rejected on the ground that the postal peon had stated that he went on 13.10.2000 to deliver Exhibit 3/b to the defendant, who refused and that he endorsed the refusal on the envelope and returned, he proves his endorsement as Exhibit 3/c and in cross examination, he had stated that he did not write the endorsement then and there. The court also recorded that P.W. 7 did not state as to whom he tendered the registered envelope and after such discussion, the learned 1st appellate court recorded that from perusal of the statement of P.W. 4 and 7, it was clear that the plaintiff failed to establish that she had communicated to the defendant the fact that she had purchased the shop in question from Madan Mohan Goenka on 11.07.2000. 34. This Court finds that the evidence of P.W. 3 has not been properly appreciated. This Court finds that the P.W. 3 had duly proved the dispatch of letter dated 11.10.2000 through certificate of posting vide Exhibits 2 and 2/a and there was no suggestion or cross- examination on behalf of the defendant alleging that the letter and the certificate of posting were forged and fabricated. It has also come in his cross-examination that P.W. 3 collected the rent only till June 2000. This evidence is coupled with the fact that P.W. 4 had clearly 2025:JHHC:34853 12 deposed that Exhibit 3 was the copy of the letter which was sent through registered cover to the defendant and it returned back with an endorsement of refusal. There is no cross-examination of P.W. 4 that Exhibit 3 was created or was forged and fabricated or was not dispatched, and therefore, the learned 1st appellate court was not justified in rejecting the evidence of P.W. 4 who proved that the notice Exhibit 3 was sent to the defendant. It is important to note that Exhibits 3, 3/a and 3/b were marked without any objection. 35. So far as the evidence of P.W. 7 is concerned, the same was also wrongly disbelieved by the learned 1st appellate court, who had clearly deposed that on 13.10.2000, he went to deliver Exhibit 3/b to the defendant but he refused and wrongly observed that this witness nowhere stated whom he tendered the registered envelope. There is no cross-examination with regard to refusal of the defendant to get the registered letter. 36. This Court also finds that the learned court has also not taken into consideration the evidence of D.W 5 (the defendant), who in para 13 named a number of tenants in the said premises and stated that they have been paying rent to the plaintiff and all of them have been tenants under the previous landlord namely Madan Mohan Goenka. Cross-examination of D.W. 5 in paragraph 14, he acknowledged that after purchase, the plaintiff has been residing in the house with her husband and children. It is also important to note that the defendant in his written statement stated that no rent receipt was furnished after June 2000 by Satya Narayan Dutta, who was the manager of the vendor of the plaintiff namely Madan Mohan Goenka and he also stated in written statement that rent was being remitted from July 2000 to Madan Mohan Goenka through post office but they refused to accept the rent. It was also stated that after knowledge of purchase and information of change of ownership, the defendant had remitted the rent to the plaintiff by money order for the month of September and October 2003 but neither any such evidence has been produced by the defendant nor any such statement has been made by the defendant D.W. 5 in his evidence. 2025:JHHC:34853 13 37. This Court finds that there was enough oral and documentary evidences placed on record to show that that the defendant had full knowledge that the building including his shop was sold to the plaintiff and the defendant was duly communicated about the change of ownership. This Court finds that the plaintiff also duly communicated to the defendant through registered post demanding rent which the defendant refused to receive. In spite of knowledge about sale of property the defendant failed to remit rent to the plaintiff and even failed to substantiate his own statement made in the written statement that he had remitted rent to the plaintiff for the month of September and October 2003 upon coming to know about the sale of the property and at the same time in the written statement and also during evidence questioned the title of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property. 38. This court is of the considered view that the finding of the learned 1st appellate court that the plaintiff failed to prove that he had ever communicated the change of ownership of the suit property to the defendant is perverse and is hereby set aside. 39. The substantial question of law is hereby answered in favour of the appellants (plaintiffs) and against the respondents (defendants). The judgement of the learned trial court is upheld. 40. This Second appeal is accordingly allowed. 41. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 42. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 18.11.2025. Saurav/ Uploaded on 04.12.2025