Rameshwar Singh & Ors. v. Raghubansh Kumar Singh

dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 14.11.2007 passed by Munsif, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2006. The plaintiff appellant filed the aforesaid eviction suit No. 2 of 2006 against the defendant respondent alleging that he has purchased the suit property and had inducted the defendant respondent as tenant on monthly rent of Rs.250/-. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent. The plaintiff requires the suit premises for the use and occupation of the family members, Patna High Court SA No.426 of 2011 (7) dt.17-06-2013 2 therefore, on this ground the plaintiff filed the eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity i.e. under Section 11(1)(C) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Eviction & Rent) Control Act, 1982. The defendant respondent appeared and contesting written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the defendant respondent the suit property has been purchased out of the joint family fund and a house has also been constructed out of the joint family fund and, therefore, the property belonged to the joint family. The defendant also denied the requirement of the plaintiff and payment of rent to the plaintiff. After trial the trial court recorded a finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and thus dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. On appeal, the appellate court also recorded the same finding and dismissed the appeal. The learned senior counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Jha appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that both the courts below have recorded the finding that the plaintiff appellant has purchased the suit property out of his own income therefore, on the ground of equality the plaintiff be granted decree because the defendants is in possession without any semblance of title. Patna High Court SA No.426 of 2011 (7) dt.17-06-2013 3 The learned counsel further submitted that the lower appellate court has recorded a wrong finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and reasons assigned by the lower appellate court for recording that finding is not acceptable. According to the learned counsel the appellant has filed the rent receipts to prove that the defendant is paying rent to the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that without considering the evidences and materials available on record the lower appellate court recorded the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove personal necessity. According to the learned counsel the finding is perverse. So far the submission of the learned counsel that the both the courts below have recorded a finding that that plaintiff has purchased the suit property therefore, decree of eviction can be granted is concerned, it may be mentioned that it is settled law that for maintaining the suit under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 there must be relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. Once the relationship is not found than the jurisdiction of the court constituted for decided cases under the B.B.C. Act have no power to grant relief of eviction on the ground of general title. In the case of Rajendra Tiwary vs. Basudeo Prasad Patna High Court SA No.426 of 2011 (7) dt.17-06-2013 4 and another, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 136, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the sine qua non for granting the relief in the suit, under the Act, is that between the plaintiffs and the defendant the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' should exist. The scope of the enquiry before the Courts was limited to the question : as to whether the grounds for eviction of the defendant have been made out under the Act. The question of title of the parties to the suit premises is not relevant having regard to the width of the definition of the terms 'landlord' and 'tenant' in clauses (f) and (h), respectively, of S. 2 of the Act. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant lower appellate court has not properly appreciated the materials i.e. the rent receipts and has given a wrong finding is concerned, from perusal of the lower appellate court judgment it appears that the lower appellate court has considered the evidences produced by the plaintiff. However, the lower appellate court has given some reasons for not relying upon those materials. According to the learned counsel the reasons are not acceptable. In the case of Viddyadhar vs. Manik Rao (1999) 3 SCC 546 and in the case of Abdul Rahim vs. Karnataka