EQBAL SHARIFF Vs. MD. SAWOOD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in eviction suit No. 61 of 2004 has been confirmed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant. I.A. No. 464 of 2008 has been filed by the appellant praying for stay of the execution case vide Execution Case No. 11 of 2007 pending in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant explains that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant/defendant from the residential quarter on the ground that the quarter was let out to the defendant on the monthly rent and that the defendant had defaulted in payment of the monthly rent. The trial Court recorded its findings in favour of the plaintiff by observing that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant was established and that, the defendant had defaulted in payment of the monthly rent for more than two months. The lower appellate Court while passing its impugned judgment has confirmed the findings of the trial Court on the above issue and has confirmed the judgment and decree, as passed by the trial Court against the appellant/defendant.

(3.) RESPONDENT has appeared in this case and has filed his counter -affidavit. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the grounds advanced by the appellant are totally misconceived and as a matter of fact, the findings of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court are based entirely on the evidences adduced by the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to controvert the oral evidence which remained intact and constituted the basis for findings recorded by the trial Court on each of the issues. Learned counsel explains further that admittedly, the suit premises is a quarter of which M/s. Tinplate Company Ltd. is the superior landlord, but admittedly, the quarter was allotted to the plaintiff by the company, who in turn, sublet the premises to the defendant on the understanding that the defendant would occupy the premises for the period of five years and on the condition that he would pay a sum of Rs. 500/ - per month towards electricity and other charges. Learned counsel explains further that as per the terms of the agreement, which was reduced to writing, the occupation of the suit premises of the defendant was by way of special understanding with the plaintiff and against the payment of Rs. 500/ - per month which was essentially the rent for the premises, though denoted as payment towards electricity and other charges. Nevertheless, the fact that amount was by way of monthly rent has been admitted by the defendant himself in the earlier suit filed by him wherein he had admitted categorically that the defendant in title suit, who happens to be the plaintiff/respondent in this case, is the landlord and that the sum of Rs. 500/ - per month used to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff by way of monthly rent and that, since the date of occupation, defendant used to pay the monthly rent regularly to the plaintiff till June 2001, whereafter, the plaintiff refused to accept the monthly rent from the month of July 2001 and had even refused to accept the payment which was remitted by the defendant by postal money order. By referring to the relevant portions of the impugned order of the lower appellate Court, as also that of the trial Court, learned Counsel argues that the findings arrived at by both the Courts below do declare there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and that, default in payment of monthly rent is based upon the evidences on record and thus, the findings which have been recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court, do not indicate that there is any' substantial question of law involved in this appeal.