Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner submits that learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective because plaintiff-opposite party could not succeed to prove his bonafide need but even then learned court below decreed the suit of plaintiff-opposite party.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff- opposite party refuted the aforesaid submissions arguing that it is well settled proposition of law that complicated question of title can not be decided in suit filed under section 11(c ) of the BBC Act and in the case filed under the above stated section, the court has to see only as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not? In support of his contention, he referred several decisions such as 2004 (I) PLJR page 476, AIR 2002 SC 138, AIR 2002 SC page 141, 2002 (3) BBCJ page 159, 2005 (2) BBCJ page 4 and several other decisions.

10. Having heard the contentions of both parties. I have gone through the record along with lower court record.

11. It is admitted case of the parties that disputed shop fell in the share of plaintiff-opposite party in his family partition and the aforesaid fact was communicated to the defendant- petitioner by elder brother of plaintiff-opposite party. It is also admitted position that after the aforesaid communication the defendant- petitioner started paying rent of disputed shop to plaintiff-opposite party. Therefore, ownership of plaintiff-opposite party over the disputed shop has not been denied by the defendant- petitioner rather it is admitted position that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff-opposite party and the defendant- petitioner. However, the defendant- petitioner claimed that plaintiff-opposite party entered into an oral agreement with him for selling disputed shop and in pursuant thereto, he took huge amount in advance. Therefore, even if the aforesaid stand of the defendant- petitioner assumed to be true, then also, according to the case of the defendant- petitioner itself, title of disputed shop has not been passed to the defendant- petitioner as yet. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that if an eviction suit is filed under section 11(c ) of the BBC Act, in the aforesaid suit complicated question of title can not be decided and the court has see only as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. Therefore, in my view, learned court below had refused to recast issues on the prayer of the defendant- petitioner because there was no need to frame any issue in respect of so- called oral agreement and taking of advance money.