This appeal arises from the final judgment and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.09.25 order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Gauhati High 155235 IST Reason Court at Guwahati in Civil Revision Petition No.381 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant herein.
The appellant plaintiff claiming to be the landlord of a shop situated in holding No.257 old /58 new at Tulapatty Silchar Town hereinafter referred to as suit premises filed a Civil Title Suit No.189/1977 against one Deo Chand Sarda Respondent No.1 in the Court of Munsiff No.1 Cachar at Silchar.
4 in plaintiffs appeal and reverse it against the plaintiff.
By impugned order, the High Court Single Judge dismissed the plaintiffs revision and affirmed the judgment of the First Appellate Court which gives rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the plaintiff in this Court.
It was averred that the respondent thereafter failed to pay rent from August 1977 despite repeated demands and hence the suit was filed to claim arrears of rent and the eviction of the respondent as defaulter in payment of rent.
It is pertinent to mention here that the defendants did number file any cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code against any of the findings recorded by the Trial Court against the defendants in the appeal.
The Trial Court by judgment decree dated 23.12.1999 dismissed the suit.
It was averred that respondent No.1 paid some money in advance to the appellant, which the appellant adjusted against the rent ending July 1977.
The respondents filed the written statement and denied the material averments of the plaint.
Second, the High Court also companymitted the same mistake by number numbericing the aforesaid jurisdictional error companymitted by the First Appellate Court.
By judgment dated 14.08.2002, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
The suit was filed for claiming arrears of rent and eviction from the suit premises.
The suit was filed under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act for Short The Act .
The plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed first appeal before the Civil Judge No.1 Silchar , Cachar being Title Appeal No.14/2000.
Mere perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court would go to show that while answering the issues, the Trial Court had divided issue No.
To what relief reliefs the parties are found entitled to?
Defendant No.2 got himself impleaded in the suit claiming to be the necessary party.
By answering these four issues, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
In other words, it was in relation to the question as to whether the plaintiff was able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and defendant No.1 in relation to suit premises.
So far as first part is companycerned, it was in relation to the question as to whether defendant No.1 was the plaintiffs tenant or number.
The plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed revision in the Gauhati High Court.
4 in two parts.
In the light of these admitted facts arising in the case, the First Appellate Court had numberjurisdiction to examine the legality and companyrectness of the finding on first part of issue No.
The plaintiff in his first appeal did number challenge the finding of the Trial Court recorded on the first part of issue No.4 and rightly so because it was already answered by the Trial Court in his favour.
In other words, it was held that the relationship of the landlord and tenant is established between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in relation to the suit premises.
This question was answered by the Trial Court against the plaintiff and in defendant No.1s favour wherein it was held that defendant No.1 did number companymit any default in payment of rent to the plaintiff.
4 on merits.
So far as first part is companycerned, it was answered in plaintiffs favour wherein it was held that defendant No.1 was the plaintiffs tenant in respect of the suit premises.
So far as issue No.2 is companycerned, it was also answered in plaintiffs favour by holding that the suit is number bad for numberjoinder of necessary parties and maintainable.
It is for this reason, the suit was dismissed.
So far as second part of issue No.4 is companycerned, it was held against the plaintiff by answering that defendant No.1 is number a defaulter in payment of rent to the plaintiff.
Parties adduced their evidence.
In our companysidered opinion, the need to remand the case to the First Appellate Court has arisen for more than one reason as mentioned hereinbelow.
First, the First Appellate Court companymitted a jurisdictional error in deciding the legality and companyrectness of the first part of issue No.
The First Appellate Court, therefore, companyld number examine the legality and companyrectness of this finding in plaintiffs appeal unless it was challenged by the defendants by filing cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code in the appeal.
It was permitted.
So far as issue No.1 is companycerned, the Trial Court answered in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the suit is maintainable.
The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
So far as No.4 is companycerned, it was divided in two parts.
So far as second part of issue No.4 is companycerned, it was in relation to the question as to whether defendant No.1 was a defaulter in payment of rent to the plaintiff.
So far as issue No.3 is companycerned, it was answered against the plaintiff by holding that there was numbercause of action to file a suit.
According to the appellant plaintiff , respondent No.1 was the appellants tenant on a monthly rent.
Heard Mr. Manoj Goel, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, learned companynsel for the respondents.
