Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Kesri vs Puran Ram And Others on 19 June, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 80 of 2011
Om Prakash Kesri ... ... Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
Versus
Puran Ram and others
... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Senior Advocate : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate
---
23/19.06.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Arguments of the appellant.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant, while referring to the substantial question of law no. (A), has submitted that on bare perusal of the exhibit-A which is dated 14.08.1986, it is apparent that there was an agreement for sale with respect to the vacant land for a consideration amount of Rs. 15,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- was already paid. It is not in dispute that the defendant was in possession of the property.
3. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the agreement for sale (exhibit-A) reveals that the suit property was a vacant land and therefore, it is submitted that the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short "BBC Act") was not at all applicable. The learned Senior counsel submits that both the learned courts have failed to consider the agreement for sale (exhibit-A) properly which was an agreement for sale of vacant land and what was being paid as rent was the rent of vacant land @ Rs. 100/- and it was not rent for any building or constructed property over the land and therefore, on the face of the agreement (exhibit-A), the eviction suit was not maintainable under special law of "BBC Act"
which deals with tenancy in buildings and does not deal with tenancy of land.
4. With respect to the substantial question of law no. (B) , the learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the agreement for sale was entered into between the parties, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the ex-landlord Narendra Prasad Sinha and the defendant ceased to exist and therefore, merely on purchase of property by the plaintiff through a registered sale-deed of the year 1997, the same could not have revived the alleged relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant and Narendra Prasad Sinha as the defendant was holding the property by his own right and not in the capacity of tenant of Narendra Prasad Sinha. For this, the learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 9 SCC 339 [R. Kanthimathi and Another Vs. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.)] and has submitted that in the said case the agreement for sale was entered into between the parties and it was ultimately held that upon entering into agreement for sale between landlord and tenant the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end. He submits that in the present case had the courts consider exhibit-A properly, there could not have been any conclusion , other than the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant between Narendra Prasad Sinha and the defendant had come to an end by virtue of agreement for sale (exhibit-A) as back as in the year 1986 and therefore, even by virtue of purchase by the plaintiff in the year 1997 , there was no continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between Narendra Prasad Sinha and defendant and then between the plaintiff and the defendant upon purchase by the plaintiff.
Arguments of the Respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the substantial question of law no. (A) has submitted that both the learned courts considered the evidences on record particularly the evidence of D.W. -1 on the basis of which it has been concluded that in the year 1985 itself, when the tenancy had commenced between Narendra Prasad Sinha and the defendant, there was a structure over the premises but the roof was in a dilapidated condition. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 21 of the trial court's judgment relating to issue no. (1) and (2) and has submitted that every aspect of 2 the matter has been considered while deciding the maintainability of the suit under the BBC Act, and the findings have been affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that tenancy was created way back in the year 1985 and at that point of time itself the suit land was not a vacant land and having a structure thereon, therefore, the provision of BBC Act was duly applicable. He submits that merely because in Exhibit- A there is a mention of vacant land, the same is not a conclusive proof. Exhibit- A is an unregistered document and the learned courts have considered the evidences on record to come to a finding that at the time of tenancy, the suit land was not vacant land.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that in the agreement of the year 1986 (exhibit-A), there is no mention about the creation of tenancy in the year 1985 although the plaint and the written statement clearly demonstrate that it stood admitted that tenancy was created way back in the year 1985 itself.
8. With regard to substantial question of law no. (B), the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the agreement for sale is required to be construed in order to come to a finding as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant terminated upon entering into agreement for sale. He has further submitted that as per the agreement (exhibit-A) itself, the liability to pay rent at Rs. 100/- per month continued. He submits that in such circumstances it cannot be said that the tenancy between Narendra Prasad Sinha and the defendant discontinued upon entering into agreement for sale (exhibit-A).
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that so far as the plea regarding part performance of contract under section 53-A of of Transfer of Property Act is concerned, the same has been rightly rejected by both the learned courts. He has submitted that on bare perusal of exhibit-A, there is no timeline given for execution of sale- deed between Narendra Prasad Sinha and the defendant and at no point of time, the defendant filed any case for specific performance of contract. He submits that had the defendant filed any suit for specific 3 performance of contract, the same would have failed as the basic ingredients for seeking specific performance of contract was itself missing in exhibit-A. He has also submitted that no substantial question of law has been framed with regard to specific performance of contract or with regard to part performance of contract under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act and findings with respect to those matters stand concluded and binding on the parties.
10. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant reported in (2000) 9 SCC 339 (supra) is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the judgment itself says that the agreement between the parties is required to be considered and he has submitted that there cannot be a straightjacket formula that merely because the agreement of sale has been entered into, that would automatically end the tenancy between the parties.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that it is not in dispute that even after the agreement of sale (exhibit-A) entered in the year 1986 between Narendra Prasad Sinha and the defendant, the defendant continued to pay rent @ Rs. 100/- till the sale deed was executed by Narendra Prasad Sinha in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1997. He has submitted that no new jural relationship has been created and it was the existing jural relationship which continued after the purchase of the property by the plaintiff.
12. Arguments concluded.
13. Post this case tomorrow i.e. on 20th June 2025 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj 4