DUTTA CYCLE STORES & ORS. versus SMT. GITA DEVI SULTANIA & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 25-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
DUTTA CYCLE STORES & ORS. 
v. 
SMT. GITA DEVI SULTANIA & ORS. 
JANUARY 25, 1990 
[K. JAGANNATIIA SHETTY & T. KOCHU THOMMEN, JJ.] 
Bihar Buildings ( Ledse, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947: S. 
11( l)(d)-Tenant-Eviction of on grounds of wilful default-Held on 
facts that no reason seen to suspect rent remained in arrears. 
The appellant-defendants fell in arrears of rent for the months of 
February and May to August 1974 for the demised premises. The 
respondent-plaintiffs sought their eviction under s. ll(l)(d) of the Bihar 
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 on the gronnds 
of default. Decreeing the suit, the trial court found that.rent for the said 
five months had not been paid. The decree was affirmed by the appel-
late court in part, that is, in respect of May and June, 1974. That 
finding was affirmed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal _by special leave, the Court, 
HELD: The Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere in pro-
ceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution particularly when all the 
courts below had reached the same conclusion. But where the finding of 
fact is based on no evidence or oppose«! to the totality of evidence and 
contrary to the rational conclusion to which the state of evidence must 
reasonably lead, then the Court will in the exerci•e of its discretion 
intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice. [154C-DJ 
In the instant case, there was no reliable oral evidence on the side 
of the plaintiffs to support the allegation that rents were in arrears. Nor 
was there any documentary evidence in support of their case. Neither 
the first plaintiff, the widow nor the other two plaintiffs, her children, 
G 
testified in support of the allegation PW-4, who verified the plaint on 
behalf of the plaintiffs admittedly had no personal knowledge that the 
defendants were in arrears of rent or whether the_ first plaintiff or 
anybody else had demanded rent from the defendants. [156F-G] 
On the other hand, DW-8, one of the defendants, stated thaC-for 
H 
the months of May and June 1974 he had paid the rent in June 1974 by 
152 
;.._ 
.• 
--.. 
; 
j.. .-
~. 
.. 
r-
' . 
, -
,,;, 
' 
).__ 
-
--~ 
\ 
\ 
T 
DU'ITA CYCLE STORES v. SMT. GITA DEVI [THOMMEN, J.] 
153 
handing over the 3111ount to the first plaintiff's daughter when sne went 
to his shop to collect the rent. Since she was a minor be accompanied 
her to her house to make sure that the amount was received by her 
mother, the first plaintiff. This evidence bas been supported by DW-7. 
He was the Accountant of the first defendant firm. DW-6 also spoke of 
the fact that in June 1974 the defendants had given Rs.200 as rent to the 
younger daughter of the plaintiff. These statements of defence witnesses 
were categoric and clear. There was no contradiction in term for there 
was no evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to the contrary. The conclu-
sion arrived at by the courts below that rents remained in arrears was, 
therefore, perverse and totally unjustified. [lSSA-B, E; 156D, F, G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 652 
of 1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1980 of the Patna High 
Court in Second Appeal No. 125 of 1977 (R). 
Ashok K. Sen and D.P. Mukherjee for the Appellants. 
N .H. Hingorani, Ms. Kapila Hingorani and R.P. Wadhwani for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMMEN, J. This civil appeal by special leave is brought by 
the defendants against the judgment of the Patna High Court, Ranchi 
Bench, in Second Appeal No. 125 of 1977 dismissing in limine their 
appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge in Title 
Appeal No. 2/5 of 1977 whereby the decree for eviction granted by the 
learned Munsiff in Title Suit No. 3 of 1975 was in part affirmed. 
The plaintiffs (respondents) instituted the suit against the 
defendants (appellants) for eviction under Section ll(l)(d) of the 
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 on the 
ground that the defendants were in arrears of rent for the months of 
February 1974 and May 1974 to August 1974. The defendants con-
tested the suit on various grounds. Their main defence was that they 
were not in arrears of rent as alleged by the plaintiffs. Decreeing the 
suit, the learned Munsiff found that rent for the months of February . 
1974 and May 1974 to August 1974 had not been paid by the 
defendants. This decree ·was affirmed by the learned District Judge ·in 
part, tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.