Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)-Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to and called, for the sake of brevity, as the 'said Act') arises out of a judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1990 passed by Md. Zafar Imam, 3rd Additional Munsif, Giridih in Eviction Suit No. 26/6 of 1988-90.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the aforementioned Eviction suit against the defendants/petitioners alleging therein that the defendants are their 'tenants and he requires the suit premises for his personal occupation bona fide and in good faith.

Learned Counsel in this connection has further submitted that not only Tip Narayan became a tenant under the plaintiff, but other persons who were inducted as tenants by the plaintiff in other portion of the said holding had all along been paying rent to him.

In this connection, learned Counsel has referred to the judgment and decree passed in Eviction Suit Nos. 27 and 30 of 1988 dated 12-6-1989 which were marked as Exts. 6 and 6/A in which a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff/opposite party as against another tenant. According to the learned Counsel, the said judgment is also admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act.

26. In a suit for eviction under the provisions of the said Act, the plaintiff is bound to prove the relationship of landlord and plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that he is landlord in respect of the premises in suit which is being occupied by the defendant as a tenant.

In a suit for eviction, however, the defendant is entitled in law to take defences other than qua tenant.

27. In a suit, therefore, where the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, normally his suit is to be dismissed. However, courts some time on equitable considerations by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure may grant a decree for eviction as against the tenant on the basis of the general title of the plaintiff.

34A. Mr. N.K. Prasad learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, when questioned, conceded that if a suit for declaration of title is filed by the petitioner before a competent Civil Court, the finding of the learned court below shall not operate as res judicata inasmuch as he has not come to a definite finding that the plaintiff has title in or over the properties in suit.

35. With regard to the question of relationship of landlord and tenant, as noticed hereinbefore, the learned court below has come to a conclusion that either the defendants were inducted by the plaintiff as a tenant or they were in permissive possession. The said Act governs the relationship of landlord and tenant. The provisions of the said Act will, therefore, be applicable only when there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant. A landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy in terms of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act if the tenant denies his title. Thus forefeiture of tenancy by reason of denial of title of the plaintiff constitutes a cause of action for eviction of the tenant. Such a question, therefore, may have to be gone into in an eviction suit, but the same must be held to be subject to the limitation that the court should have jurisdiction to try the suit.