MOHAN PATRA Vs. SUMITRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act challenging the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Bargarh in S. C. C. Suit No. 127 of 1979/80. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 430/ - representing the house rent for the period from October, 1978 to September, 1979, with respect to the house bearing Holding No. 605 in Ward No. 3 of Bargarh Municipality. According to the plaint case, Biranchi, the father of the plaintiff, was the admitted owner of the house who had inducted the defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/ -. Biranchi gifted away the property in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession of the same to him. The plaintiff on becoming the owner of the house gave notice to the defendant to pay the rent but the defendant did not pay and hence the suit.

(2.) THE defendant in his written statement denied the assertion that Biranchi inducted the defendant as a tenant of the house. According to the defence case, Ambika, the eldest daughter of Biranchi, is the landlady with respect to the house in question and the defendant is paying the rent to Ambika. The so called gift deed executed by Biranchi in favour of the plaintiff is invalid and not binding on the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge exercising his power under the Small Cause Courts Act held that the suit was maintainable and further the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of his father as landlord of the defendant and, therefore, was entitled to receive the rent of the house. On a further finding that the defendant was in arrears of rent for the period as claimed, the court directed payment of the same and decreed the suit.

(3.) IN order to establish that there is no attornment, the learned counsel wanted to place the evidence in this case and contended that it was permissible to look into the evidence for this purpose. The power of the High Court under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmir (Rent Control) Act, which is in pari materia with Section 25 of the Act, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shankar and Ors. v. Rao Giridhari Lal Chowdhury reported in A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 698. The Court approved the observations of Beaumont, C. J. (as he then was) in the case of Bell and Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj. A. I. R. 1938 Bombay 223 where the learned Chief Justice was dealing with Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The ratio of the said decision is that wherever the court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the court can interfere; but that does not amount to the same thing as reassessment of evidence and come to its own conclusion. In fact Beaumont, C. J. had observed that the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possible the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at. Howsoever wide the power may be, it is not open to the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 25 to reassess the evidence and come to its own conclusion. But it is not necessary in this case to look into the evidence inasmuch as Mr. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the opposite party, admitted that there had been no attornment by the tenant.