Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(h) of Section 2 of the BBC Act and the court while deciding eviction suit cannot decide the question of title. Failing in their earlier attempt, the petitioners have again come up with another Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025 plea with regard to disposal of Title Suit No. 60 of 2009. which has no relevance at all for the purpose of determination of real controversy between the parties. Moreover, in the said judgment, no new rights have been conferred upon the petitioners. The said suit was filed for specific performance of contract and all the defendants except one executed sale deeds in favour of the respondent Bhola Prasad, the learned trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiff was not entitled for specific performance of contract against defendant no. 2 Sanjay Kumar. Further, the suit property was also different. In the present case, the learned trial court is required to examine whether there exists any landlord tenant relationship between the parties and whether any of the grounds seeking amendment is established or not. Claim of the respondents is based on registered sale deed and it is not contingent upon any agreement to sale being executed. Admittedly, the petitioners were tenants of the vendors of the respondents and when the sale deed was executed, the petitioners were in possession of the suit property in their capacity as tenant. Therefore, by operation of law, the petitioners became the tenants of the respondents irrespective of the fact that whether they atorned the plaintiffs/respondents as landlord or not. Moreover, the sale deeds have never been Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025 challenged. Learned counsel further submitted that even the vendor of the petitioners, namely Rani Sinha is also signatory on partition deed and no co-sharer has supported the case of the petitioners and none of them challenged the deeds executed in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel further submitted that the eviction suit was filed in the year 2011 and the defendants have avoided the disposal of the suit for almost 14 years. It is only a delaying tactics of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that no subsequent events had taken place in respect of suit property and it is obvious that the present suit has been filed in the year 2011 on the basis of sale deeds executed in the year 2008. But the amendment sought is totally irrelevant, absurd and malafide. By seeking the amendment, the petitioners want to challenge the title of the respondents without any locus standi and the same could not be allowed.