Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The suit for eviction was filed under the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the BBC Act") on ground of default in payment of rent and also on account of personal necessity. The suit was decreed on 2026:JHHC:9668 both the grounds and the appeal has been dismissed. Consequently, the defendant is the appellant before this Court.

3. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 10.09.2025 by framing substantial question which was slightly modified vide order dated 06.01.2026. Consequently, this 2nd appeal is to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:

J. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has recorded a finding that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties by refusing to consider the agreement 'Exhibit E' by referring to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and holding that the agreement is inadmissible in evidence and consequently, the impact of agreement entered into between the parties has not been considered at all.

K. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has completely misdirected himself while considering Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and also Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel submits that on the basis of the agreement, it was to be examined as to whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant continued between the parties after the agreement of sale, particularly in the light of the aforesaid clause which provided 2026:JHHC:9668 that by virtue of the agreement, the defendant was not required to pay rent. He has submitted that had the agreement been considered in the light of the judgement which was relied upon by the defendant before the learned 1st appellate court, there would have been no difficulty in holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has seized, and consequently, the suit under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act itself was not maintainable. L. He has further submitted that had the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession by claiming title, then the defendant would not have been in a position to claim the protection of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act as admittedly the agreement was unregistered. The learned counsel submits that the basis of filing the suit under the BBC Act was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and while deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the agreement has been completely overlooked on the erroneous application of law.

XI. He has submitted that the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (2019) 4 SCC 153 (Supra) assumes importance in view of the fact that in the present case also, the terms and conditions of the agreement do not indicate that there would be a termination of tenancy by virtue of the agreement, rather the agreement reveals that the tenancy did not terminate. XII. The learned counsel submits that even if the clause of agreement is taken into consideration, then also there is at best deferment in payment of rent in terms of the agreement, but the learned courts have given concurrent finding on the bonafide requirement of the landlady which is a distinct ground for eviction under the BBC Act. He submits that there being no intention of termination of tenancy between the parties and even if the ground of default is not sustained, the eviction on account 2026:JHHC:9668 of bonafide necessity will still be sustainable to uphold the decree of eviction of the suit property.

j) The learned counsel has referred to the definition of landlord and tenant as defined under the BBC Act and has further submitted that as per clause in the agreement, the defendant was not supposed to pay rent from October 2007 and clause 6 of the agreement would trigger only when the defendant refused to perform in terms of the agreement. He submits that the defendant never refused to perform and before the expiry of the period of agreement a suit for specific performance of contract was already filed as the husband of the plaintiff, who entered into the agreement had expired and the plaintiff, his wife, refused to convey the property in terms of the agreement. Findings of this Court