Supreme Court Remands Civil Dispute Over Rent and Eviction Case in Silchar

The case of Biswajit Sukul v. Deo Chand Sarda & Ors. revolves around a civil dispute regarding unpaid rent and the eviction of a tenant in Silchar, Assam. The appellant, Biswajit Sukul, had filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent, Deo Chand Sarda, under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The case provides significant insights into tenant-landlord relations and the judicial process in tenancy disputes.

Background of the Case

In 1977, Biswajit Sukul, the appellant, filed a civil suit against Deo Chand Sarda, the respondent, claiming arrears of rent and eviction from a shop located at Tulapatty, Silchar. The appellant, as the landlord, contended that the respondent had been in possession of the property as a tenant, but had failed to pay rent from August 1977, despite repeated demands.

The appellant alleged that the respondent had paid an advance amount, which was adjusted against the rent until July 1977, but thereafter defaulted in making payments. Therefore, the appellant filed the suit under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, seeking recovery of the arrears and eviction of the tenant for non-payment of rent.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court, after considering the pleadings and evidence presented by both parties, framed several issues for determination, including:

• Whether the suit was maintainable in law.
• Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
• Whether there was a cause of action to file the suit.
• Whether the respondent was a tenant under the plaintiff and whether he was in default of rent.
• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent.

After hearing both parties and evaluating the evidence, the trial court made the following findings:

• The suit was maintainable.
• The suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
• The first part of issue No. 4 was answered in favor of the plaintiff, confirming that the respondent was indeed the tenant under the appellant.
• However, the second part of issue No. 4, which dealt with whether the respondent was in default of rent, was answered against the plaintiff, with the court holding that the respondent had not defaulted in rent payment.

Consequently, the trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not proven the claim of rent default by the respondent.

First Appellate Court Decision

The appellant filed an appeal before the Civil Judge No. 1 (Silchar) under Title Appeal No. 14/2000. However, the appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court. The court upheld the trial court’s findings and noted that the respondent had not been shown to be in default of rent payments, and the eviction was not justified.

High Court and Revision Petition

The appellant then filed a revision petition in the Gauhati High Court, challenging the first appellate court’s decision. The High Court, in its judgment, affirmed the decision of the first appellate court and dismissed the revision petition, stating that the findings of the lower courts were sound. The High Court observed that the tenant had not been in default and that the eviction order could not be granted without proper proof of rent default.

Supreme Court Appeal

The appellant, still dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The primary issues raised in the appeal were:

• Whether the finding regarding the respondent’s default in rent payments was correct.
• Whether the appellant was entitled to eviction despite the rent default not being proven conclusively.
• Whether the High Court erred in affirming the decision of the lower courts.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, Biswajit Sukul, argued that:

• The trial court had erred in finding that the respondent was not in default of rent payments.
• The appellant had repeatedly demanded payment, but the respondent had failed to make the required payments.
• Under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, the tenant was liable for eviction due to the default in payment.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, Deo Chand Sarda, contended that:

• The appellant had failed to prove that he was in default of rent payments.
• There was no evidence to support the claim of non-payment, and the payments made by the respondent had been sufficient to cover the rent until the suit was filed.
• There was no legal basis for eviction, as the tenant had been paying rent as per the terms of the agreement.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the case, considering the findings of the trial court, first appellate court, and the High Court. The Court observed that:

• The issue of rent default was crucial to the case and needed to be evaluated in greater detail.
• The trial court had correctly concluded that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove rent default.
• The Court noted that under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, eviction could only be granted if there was clear evidence of default, which had not been established in this case.

The Court emphasized the importance of the burden of proof on the landlord in eviction cases:

“In eviction suits, it is the duty of the landlord to provide conclusive proof of rent arrears before seeking eviction of the tenant.”

Supreme Court’s Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• The first appellate court and the High Court had rightly concluded that the appellant had not proven the default of rent payments by the respondent.
• Given that the default had not been conclusively established, eviction could not be granted based on insufficient evidence.
• The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the findings of the lower courts were upheld.

The Court concluded:

“The appellant has failed to establish the rent default by the respondent, and as such, the eviction cannot be granted. The appeal is dismissed.”

Conclusion

This case emphasizes the importance of solid evidence in tenant-landlord disputes, particularly in matters concerning eviction for non-payment of rent. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, reaffirming that eviction orders should only be passed when rent default is established with clear evidence. The judgment serves as a reminder that tenants cannot be evicted without proper legal grounds, and landlords must substantiate their claims with proof.

Petitioner Name: Biswajit Sukul.
Respondent Name: Deo Chand Sarda & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Silchar, Assam.
Judgment Date: 25-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Biswajit Sukul vs Deo Chand Sarda & Or Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category