Siddanna Hoogar vs Jaypee Cements Corporation Limited

Rathnakala, J.—This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chittapur, in Regular Appeal No. 7 of 2012 wherein the lower Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahabad in O.S. No. 12 of 2010, dated 17-12-2011. The facts leading to this second appeal is the respondent/plaintiff-company filed a suit for recovery of possession of quarters allotted to the defendant and for damage at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month till the delivery of possession of the suit property. The defendant contested the suit and his defence was the officer who signed the plaint had no authority to sign and verify the plaint; the plaintiff did not pay wages to the defendant as per the current wages and gratuity. Hence, he is entitled to stay in the quarters till his arrears are cleared by the plaintiff-company. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit quarters within three months and the plaintiff-company was held entitled to recover the damages of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the defendants from 27-11-2009 till the date of possession.

On appeal by the defendant, he filed an application under Order 4, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking permission to lead additional evidence to establish that the relationship between him and the plaintiff is not that of the lessor and lessee but of tenant and landlord, since, the rent for the quarters was deducted by the Company from his salary. He has paid the bills for electricity supplied to his house, and intended to produce documentary proof in support of said contention which goes to show that Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was not applicable in the matter, consequently very suit of the plaintiff''s company was not maintainable.

The lower Appellate Court heard I.A. No. 1 along with merits of the appeal and dismissed the I.A. No. 1 so also the appeal.

Sir Krupa Sagar Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant submits ''the respondent-company was due towards arrears of wages and was yet to settle other benefits. Though the arrears of wages is adjudicated by Hon''ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Kolkatta, the company has failed to pay the said arrears and gratuity amount towards the service rendered by the appellant. Hence, he is entitled to stay in the quarters. The officer who signed the plaint was not authorised by this company. Hence, the suit was not in accordance with Order 29 of CPC. Since the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant, the Karnataka Rent Act was not applicable and the recovery suit was not maintainable". Therefore, he prays to admit the second appeal to adjudicate the questions of law raised by him.

As against this, Sri N.B. Diwanji, learned Counsel for the respondent submits "the contentions now raised before this Court were raised before the Trial Court also and same was extensively dealt by the both the Courts below. The amount deducted towards rent, was from the erstwhile employer of the defendant/appellant. The agreement entered into between the defendant and the company was leave and licence and production of the documents regarding deduction towards rent from his salary and payment of electricity bill will be of no consequence on the merits of the case; the lower Appellate Court has properly applied its mind to the facts and found that the relationship between the parties was not that of the landlord and the tenant. Hence, the provision of Karnataka Rent Act was not applicable. The judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below is well-reasoned without any error either on facts or law and prays to dismiss the appeal. The Senior Manager of the Company had signed and verified the plaint. The Trial Court on a scrupulous examination of Order 29, Rule 1 of CPC and also in the light of the precedents has held that he is the Principal Officer as contemplated in Order 29, Rule 1 of CPC. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Trial Court has observed the claim of the defendant in respect of back wages and gratuity is unconnected to the suit quarters. It is the submission at the bar that the appellant is agitating his right in respect of back wages and gratuity before the proper forum. That being so, I do not find any mistake on the part of the Trial Court in holding that the claim of the defendant in respect of back wages and gratuity is no way concerned with the suit quarters. It is also a fact to be noted that the appellant is said to have been superannuated in the year 2009 itself, there is documentary proof about the Ex. P. 3 regarding the relationship between the parties, was that of leave and licence. Under the circumstances there is no merit in the contention that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The prayer of the appellant with regard to the production of his salary slip and electricity bills in no way improves appellant''s case. Under the circumstances, no substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is granted four months'' time to vacate the premises.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No. 1 of 2013 does not survive for consideration; it is dismissed accordingly.