KISHORE Vs. GEETA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 24/7/2019 and decree dtd. 5/8/2019 passed by Learned District Judge-II, Koderma in Civil Appeal No.13 of 2018, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dtd. 31/3/2018 and decree dtd. 13/4/2018 passed by learned Additional Munsif-II, Koderma in Eviction Suit No.01/2013 has been upheld.

(2.) Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/appellant submits that findings of the Courts below are perverse on the ground that the learned Court below have not considered the fact that the appellant has regularly paid the rent but receipt has not been given to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant formulated substantial question of law that the Courts below have failed to consider the oral evidence adduce on behalf of the appellant in its true prospective and as such, findings are perverse.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellant on the point of admission and formulating substantial question of law. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants upto a length and on perusal of findings of fact recorded concurrently by the courts below, I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that learned Court below has categorically held that ' the plaintiff /respondent has able to establish in this case that the appellant/ defendant has not paid rent of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff for the specified period, therefore, he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises under Sec. 11(1)(d) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. Therefore, the substantial question of law as formulated by learned counsel cannot be accepted as a substantial question of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girja Nandini Devi Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury reported in AIR 1967 SC 1124 has held as under: