Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1568 of 2016 dt.19-07-2019

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record, I find that the petitioners had filed Eviction Suit No.5 of 2012 in the court of Sub Judge for eviction of the respondent no.2 from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity under Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'BBC Act').

6. In his plaint, the petitioners had pleaded that they had purchased the suit property from the original owner by virtue of registered sale deed for the purpose of running business, as the suit premises is suitable for running business. After purchase of the suit premises from the original owner, they gave notice to the respondent no.2 to vacate the premises, as they required the same for their own use and occupation reasonably and in good faith.

17. The petitioners filed the instant suit for eviction of respondent no.2 from the suit premises, who was inducted as a tenant. Under the circumstances, prima facie, intervention of third party was impermissible, as it would have changed the nature of the suit.

18. In a suit for eviction, the only issue to be determined is whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the tenant can be evicted under the provision of BBC Act.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1568 of 2016 dt.19-07-2019

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Tiwary (supra). While dealing with suit of the plaintiffs for eviction of defendant from the suit premises under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the BBC Act, the Supreme Court held in paragraph 7 as under:-

"7. It is evident that while dealing with the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. Courts including the High Court were exercising jurisdiction under the Act which is a special enactment. 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 Section 2 of the Act."