Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record.

Substantial Question of Law Nos.(i) and (iv)

13. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that the substantial questions of law as framed in point (i) and (iv) are inter-connected and related to scope of jurisdiction under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'BBC Act'). Accordingly, both the points have been taken up together for the sake of convenience, convergence and coherence.

13.1. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that it is well settled position in law that the question of title cannot be gone into in an eviction suit and in this case the suit as framed was inherently defective and is not maintainable. He has further submitted that when the Trial Court as well as appellate Court find that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant over the suit property which is sine qua non then under the powers conferred upon it by the BBC Act, the Court cannot inquire into the title of the plaintiff since it is beyond the scope of the learned courts below exercising the jurisdiction under the Patna High Court SA No.140 of 2021 dt.15-04-2024 BBC Act as no alternative relief can be granted and the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted. He has further submitted that it is well settled that the question of title of the parties to the suit premises is not relevant when the suit has been filed for eviction under BBC Act which is a special Act having limited jurisdiction to try suits on the grounds specified in the special Act and cannot pass a decree of eviction on a ground other than the one specified in the Act. The scope of such suit is very limited and the question of title cannot be looked into because suit would be eventually dismissed even if plaintiff succeeds in proving title but fails to establish contract of tenancy.

14. On the other hand learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.1/plaintiff has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff has not been filed under BBC Act and the provisions of BBC Act are not applicable in this case. The suit filed by plaintiff was not pure suit for eviction, it was a complex suit for declaration of title along with other reliefs which is permissible. In case of dispute over the title of landlord, the plaintiff can ask for eviction of the tenant on the basis of her title on the suit property and the alternative relief as provided under Order VII Rule 7 of C.P.C. The courts below on Patna High Court SA No.140 of 2021 dt.15-04-2024 considering the evidence on record held that the plaintiff has valid right, title and interest over the suit land except over R.S. Khata No.102, R.S. Plot No.144 area 6 decimals which belong to the State of Bihar and the defendant nos.1 and 2 have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit land and possession of the defendant over the suit land is illegal and that of trespassers and they are liable to be evicted from the suit land. He has further submitted that the suit was filed for declaration of title and, accordingly, paid ad valorem court fee. He has further submitted that the case and conduct of defendants/appellants is such that no prudent man would believe the case. The plaintiff failed to establish that defendant nos.1 and 2 are tenant of suit premises and accordingly, appellants are not entitled to be protected under the BBC Act When the appellants are neither owner nor tenant nor lessee then they can be said to be trespassers and liable to be evicted.

15. The question of title if disputed in an eviction suit under BBC Act, may incidentally be gone into in connection with the primary question for determining the main question about the relationship between the parties.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tribhuwanshankar vs. Amrutlal reported in (2014) 2 SCC Patna High Court SA No.140 of 2021 dt.15-04-2024 788 considered the earlier decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of LIC vs. India Automobiles & Co. reported in (1990) 4 SCC 286, Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal (1995) 6 SCC 580 and Rajendra Tiwary vs. Basudeo Prasad (2002) 1 SCC 90 and held that there is difference in exercise of jurisdiction when the Civil Court deals with a lis relating to eviction brought before it under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and any special enactment pertaining to eviction on special grounds. However, it has been held that if the alternative relief is permissible within the ambit of the Act, the position would be different. It has further been held that the Court can decide the issue of title if a tenant disputes the same and the only purpose is to see whether the denial of title of the landlord is bonafide in the circumstances of the case.