Eviction | Payment Of Salami For Tenancy Not Relevant For Deciding Issue Of Landlord's Personal Necessity: Patna High Court

The observation came from Justice Anil Kumar Sinha:

"It was evident that admittedly the suit was for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The payment of salami of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for repair of the ceiling of the tenanted premises given by the petitioner-defendant was not relevant for deciding the real issue of personal necessity in the suit."

The Petitioner submitted claimed that he was inducted as a tenant by the father of the plaintiff-respondent in the year 1989 on the basis of oral tenancy. Subsequently, the tenancy was reduced into writing by the plaintiff's father in a diary maintained by him where both had put their signatures. The contention of the petitioner was that at that point of time, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was paid by the petitioner-defendant to the father of the plaintiff-respondent as Salami for tenancy and Rs. 10,000/- for repair of the ceiling of the tenanted premises. However, during the course of examination as plaintiff witness, the father of the plaintiff-respondent denied his signature on the diary and stated that the same would be verified through a handwriting expert.

Aggrieved by rejection of an application for verification of signature by the civil court, the Petitioner initiated instant proceedings.

The Respondent-plaintiff submitted that there was no dispute with regard to the landlord-tenant relationship and the suit was purely for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. Thus, the plaintiff's only case was to prove the genuineness of his personal necessity and there was no need to prove the signatures for deciding that controversy. "The defendant has not been able to show as to in what manner the comparison of the signature of the father of the plaintiff on the said diary would be relevant for the proper adjudication of the real issue involved in the suit."

Agreeing with the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal v. Vikash Agrawal