ivil Appeal No 652 of 1982
From the Judgment and Order dated 2281980 of the Patna High Court in Second Appeal No 125 of 1977 R
Ashok K Sen and DP Mukherjee for the Appellants
NH Hingorani Ms Kapila Hingorani and RP 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 25 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 111d 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 contested the suit on various grounds
Their main defence was that they were not in ar rears 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 that is in respect of the alleged arrears for the months of May 154 and June 1974 and not for any other period
The finding of the First Appellate Court was affirmed by the High Court by dismissing the defendants  appeal in limine
The question which arises for consideration is whether the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion which they did and whether the impugned judgment of the High Court is liable to be interfered with in the present appeal brought by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution
Whether or not rent for the two months in question had been duly paid by the defendants is a question of fact and with a finding of such fact this Court does not ordinarily interfere in proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitu tion particularly when all the courts below reached the same conclusion
But where the finding of fact is based on no evidence or opposed to the totality of evidence and contrary to the rational conclusion to which the state of evidence must reasonably lead then this Court will in the exercise of its discretion intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice
The suit was instituted by the widow of Rameswarlal Sultania
The plaint was verified by Rameswarlal Sultania s nephew on behalf of the plaintiffs and he deposed as PW 4
Neither the first plaintiff the widow nor the other two plaintiffs her children testified in support of the plaint allegations
The nephew PW 4 frankly admitted in the box that he had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the plaint
He did not know if the defendants were in arrears of rent or whether his aunt the first plaintiffs or anybody else had demanded rent from the defendants
None of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs had any personal knowledge of the facts alleged by the plaintiffs in regard to the arrears of rent
PW 4 is amongst the plaintiff s witnesses the only person who speaks to this fact but admittedly speaks without any claim of personal knowledge
In the circumstances there is no reliable oral evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to support the plaint allegation regarding the arrears of rent
Nor is there any documentary evidence in support of their case
On the other hand the defendants categorically stated that they had paid the rent for the two months in question to the first plaintiff
At that time her husband was alive but he was in no condition on account of poor health to give a receipt for the rents paid
The defendants in view of their personal relationship with him did not insist upon a receipt
155 DW 8 is one of the defendants
He categorically stated that for the months of May and June 1974 he paid the rent in June 1974 by handing over the amount to the first plain tiff s daughter when she went to his shop to collect the rent
Since she was a minor he accompanied her to her house to make sure that the amount was received by her mother the first plaintiff
His evidence on the point is in the follow ing words It is incorrect to say that I have not paid the rent for May June 1974
In June the daughter of Rameshwar Babu had come to demand Rs200 towards the rent for May June 1974 and I had given the Illegible at that time
I had demanded the receipt_ but he was unwell and as such did not give it Rameshwar Babu was not living in his senses in June 74
His brain was not in proper condition
In June 74 I gave Rs200 to his wife plaintiff after taking the same to his house
Even subsequently my brother had gone to pay the rent to the plaintiff Gita Devi for two three times
 This evidence is supported by DW 7
He is the Accountant of the first defendant firm of which defendants Nos 2 and 3 who are brothers are partners
Referring to these partners and a neighbour by name Nandi DW 6 this is what he says In June 74 the defendants Bibhuti and Prahalad Chandra Dutta had given Rs200 two hundred rupees to the daughter of Rameshwar Babu
Nandi Babu Bibhuti Babu and I were present in the shop at that time
This money was paid towards the rent of the house
Nandi DW 6 also speaks on this point The defendants always used to pay the rent in my presence  
In June 1974 they had given Rs200 as rent to the younger daughter of Ramesh Babu in my presence
I told them that as she was a small girl they should also accompany her
Then Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta reached the girl
 The evidence of these three defence witnesses is that the rent for the months of May and June
1974 had been duly paid in June 1974 in 156 the sum of Rs200 by the second defendant DW 8 to the landlord Rameswarlal Sultania by handing over the amount to his minor daughter who went to the defendants  shop to collect the same and by accompanying her to her house to see to the safe delivery of the same to the first plaintiff her mother who obviously received it on behalf of her husband the landlord
The evidence seems to be clear on the point and we see no contradiction in this
The courts below did not appreciate that this much evidence was staring in the face and there was total ab sence of evidence on the point on the side of the plantiffs to contradict the defence evidence
The plaint allegation regarding arrears was not spoken to on the plaintiffs  side by any person having personal knowledge
The plaintiffs made no attempt to let in any reliable evidence on the point
The evidence of PW 4 who admittedly had no personal knowledge on the point is no evidence at all
On the other hand the evidence of DW 8 supported by the evidence of his Account ant DW 7 and his neighbour DW 6 is categoric and clear
The learned District Judge disbelieved this evidence on the assumption that DW 6 contradicted himself when he stated that the amount was paid to the daughter and also to her monther
In his written statement he stated that the amount had been paid to the landlord Rameswarlal Sultania
In the light of what we have stated above we see no contradiction in these statements
The amount was in our view rightly stated to have been paid to Rameswarlal Sulta nia when it was handed over to the daughter to be paid over to her monther viz the first plaintiff who was reasonably understood to have received it for and on behalf of her husband
If the statement is true there is no contradiction in it and it is categoric and clear
We see no reason to suspect that it is not true for there is no evidence on the side of the plantiffs to the contrary
As stated earlier there is no evidence at all on the side of the plaintiffs that rents were in arrears
In the absence of any reason to disbelieve the clear and categoric testimony of the defence witnesses on the point we see no reason to suspect that the rents remained in arrears
In the circumstances we are of the view that the courts came to the conclusion as they did without any evidence whatsoever to support it and contrary to the available evidence let in by the defence
Their conclusion was therefore perverse irrational and totally unjustified
For this reason we set aside the impugned decree and judgment of the courts below
The appeal is allowed with costs
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant cooperative societies consisting of 1739 low paid Government servants had acquired certain land in Ghaziabad for the purpose of providing residential accommo dation to their members
Subsequently the said land was notified for acquisition under sections 41 and 71 of the Land Acquisition Act for the Ghaziabad Development Authori ty
Representations made by the appellants under section 5A of the Act were rejected
In the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution it was contended for the appellant societies that the Development Authority constituted by the State for the same purpose should not have been permitted to acquire the said land to their prejudice and that there was no justification for depriving them of their right to represen tation under section 5A of the Act
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions
Allowing the appeals by special leave the Court HELD 1
The members of the appellant societies should not be denied residential accommodation for which they had taken effective steps before the acquisition for the Ghazia bad Development Authority was notified
205G 21 Keeping in view the number of eligible members the total area which they had acquired and entrusted to the societies for construction the capacity of the members to pay for the construction now charged by the Development Authority the need for planned development of the area and all other relevant facts it would be sufficient if each one of them was provided with an area of 80 sq yards
205G H 206A 204 22 High rise construction for the poor sections of the society would not be convenient
If the double storey con struction with an area of 80 sq
yards is adopted about 20 acres of land inclusive of land for laying of the roads and other requirements contemplated under the development scheme would be necessary
For convenience and adjustment two more acres of land shall be made available to the socie ties to be shared by amicable adjustment by them
Thus from the acquisition notification 22 acres of land shall stand deleted and shall be released inaccordance with the extent indicated for each of the societies
The identification of the land to be so released shall be made within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of the order by mutual ar rangements
The order of release bearing appropriate de scription to follow and sketch maps to be signed by the parties
206D 207C E 3
The development charges for sewerage electricity road connections and the like shall be provided to the Development Authority at the rate of Rs100 per sq yard and internal development shall be done by the societies them selves
In raising the construction the bye laws and regu lations of the Development Authority shall be strictly followed 207G