Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

passed by the learned Munsif, Bettiah in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif, Bettiah has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBC Act').

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial court and has filed Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2020 for decree of eviction against the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.695 of 2023 dt.06-02-2024 defendant/respondent and had also prayed for handing over the possession of the suit property apart from payment of arrears of rent. The respondent is the tenant and an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent on 01.06.2019 and it was agreed that the defendant would pay monthly rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month apart from electricity bill. The respondent paid the rent to the plaintiff till 30.11.2019 and thereafter stopped the payment of rent since December, 2019. The respondent also violated the terms of agreement. After expiry of lease period on 01.04.2020, notice was given to the respondent to vacate the premises, but the respondent did not vacate the premises and thereafter eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that after notice, the defendant appeared before the learned trial court and filed his written statement denying the title of the plaintiff and relationship of landlord and tenant. The respondent claimed that an agreement to sale was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on 10.06.2019 and the consideration amount was Rs. 80,000,00/- (eighty lacs) out of which the respondent paid Rs. 65,00,000/- (sixty five lacs) on different dates. As the petitioner refused to execute the sale deed in faovur of the respondent, the respondent filed Title Suit No. 254 of 2022 for specific performance of contract. The defendant further claimed that as per deed of Patna High Court C.Misc. No.695 of 2023 dt.06-02-2024 agreement there was no relation of tenant and landlord between the parties.

04. Learned counsel further submits that after completion of pleadings of the parties, petitioner filed a petition under Section 15 of the BBC Act for payment of rent claiming arrears of rent dues amounting to Rs. 87,000/- @ 3,000/- per month. In his rejoinder, the respondent stated that he was not liable to pay rent to the petitioner as respondent was tenant of petitioner till 04.06.2019 and thereafter the respondent was in possession in terms of the agreement of sale and has paid Rs. 65,00,000/- (sixty five lacs) to the petitioner and balance amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale- deed. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court after hearing the parties rejected the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 15 of the BBC Act by a cryptic order. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by passing a non-speaking order. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that tenancy was admitted and if any agreement was made between the parties it would not confer title over the person who has got an agreement of sale in his favour. Unless the rights are decided by a competent court, no title will pass to the defendant as he has no right in property. Learned counsel further submits that the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.695 of 2023 dt.06-02-2024 relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and payment of rent is also admitted, though there is different version of petitioner and respondent about the period till the rent was paid. Further, the petitioner has no where admitted execution of agreement of sale in faovur of the respondent and as the respondent has taken up this defence, the option available to the respondetn is to get the right enforced for specific performance of contract and the respondent does not get any right unless the agreement is performed by the plaintiff. On this aspect, learned counsel relies on a decision of the of this Court in the case of Ramashish Rai Vs. Baijnath Mishra & Anr., reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 862 submitting that in this case the question for consideration was whether the plaintiff has a legal right to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit land by obtaining an order of interim injunction on the basis of agreement of sale and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that an agreement to sale creates a right in personam and it does not create any right in the property. The same proposition was reiterated in the case of Bindhyachal Prasad & Ors. Vs. Sitaram Patwa & Ors., reported in 2023 (1) BLJ 708. Learned counsel further submits that if any agreement is entered into between the parties and pursuant to that agreement possession is handed over, it becomes essential for the parties to get the documents registered and Patna High Court C.Misc. No.695 of 2023 dt.06-02-2024 without any registration of document, possession cannot be handed over. Learned counsel further submits that order of the learned court below is erroneous and bad in the eye of law without exercising the jurisdiction vested in it.

07. Accordingly, the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the learned Munsif, Bettiah in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2020 stands set-aside and the petition under Section 15, BBC Act filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is allowed and defendant/respondent is directed to pay arrears of rent from December, 2019 to up till now @ Rs. 3,000/- per month, within three months from the date of this order and the defendants shall also pay the monthly rent Patna High Court C.Misc. No.695 of 2023 dt.06-02-2024 of Rs. 3,000/- per month on or before 15 th of each month during pendency of the eviction suit before the learned trial court.