Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Ms. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the present suit was filed for eviction of the defendants on two counts:- (a) default in payment of rent and

(b) personal necessity. The eviction suit has been filed invoking the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short 'BBC Act'). It is further submitted that the established legal possession governing the eviction suit which is brought within the controls of the aforesaid BBC Act is that there has to be an established landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants of the case. It is further submitted that no title dispute can be adjudicated in an eviction suit and the title of the landlord claiming eviction should be clear and indisputable. Thus, no title dispute which is shrouded as an eviction suit is maintainable and the recourse left to the parties arising out of such title dispute is to settle that dispute. Reliance has been placed in the case of Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Basudeo Prasad and Another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90 (para 7, 8, 16 & 17) and Gopal Singh @ Gopal Prasad Vs. Prafulla Chandra Gupta & Ors reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 555 (para 22 to 26). Learned counsel Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025 further submits that the defendants-appellants and their predecessors in interest have been residing over the property since 1957 and they are continuing in possession of the property till date. Defendant no. 1/respondent no. 3 executed a sale deed dated 02.02.2010 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 which has been challenged by appellant no. 5, who is daughter of respondent no. 3 in Title Suit No. 515 of 2010, which was dismissed on contest.

16. Being aggrieved, appellant no. 5 filed Title Appeal No. 06 of 2020 which is still pending before the learned lower Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the aforesaid suit bearing Title Suit No. 515 of 2010 was filed by appellant no. 5 prior to the present Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011. It is vehemently submitted that eviction suit under BBC Act is not maintainable since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. There is a concurrent finding of the courts below that the plaintiffs have not filed any documents to prove that what was the rent of the suit premises and from when the defendants defaulted in payment of rent. Despite that learned lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the definition of word 'landlord' and 'tenant' as defined under Section 2(f) and 2(g) of the BBC Act explicitly uses the word 'rent' as the parameter to ascertain landlord and tenant relationship and therefore in the facts Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025 and circumstances of the present case, there was no landlord- tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants. This vital question has not been considered by the lower Appellate Court. However, learned Appellate Court has contradicted his own finding by holding existence of landlord-tenant relationship only on the basis of being purchaser of the suit property. The question of title of the plaintiffs is sub judice in Title Appeal No. 06 of 2020. The said appeal is continuation of suit.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial court has rightly held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. On that score, the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. The lower Appellate Court erroneously interfered in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court without any reason/finding on the point of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and defendants. It is well settled law that existence of landlord- tenant relationship is sine-qua-non for maintaining a suit for eviction under the BBC Act. In any event, inquiry into title of the plaintiffs is beyond the scope of court exercising jurisdiction under the BBC Act. The scope of the inquiry before the Courts was limited to the question as to whether the grounds of eviction of the defendant have been made out in the BBC Act. The question of Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025 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 clause f and h of Section 2 of the BBC Act.

22. On analysis by the learned Appellate Court, it is held that the relationship between the landlord and tenant is proven in a suit for eviction. The definition of 'landlord' and 'tenant' under the Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025 BBC Act had been expressed in the case of Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Basudev Prasad reported in 2002 (1) SCC 90. The Apex court has held that in any event, inquiry into title of the plaintiff is beyond the scope of Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act. That being position the impugned order of the High Court remanding the case to the First Appellate Court for recording finding on the question of title of the parties is unwarranted and unsustainable. It is apparent that in the impugned judgment of Appellate Court, the Court has decided the title of the parties not only on the basis of sale deed but the claim of the plaintiffs as landlord has been accepted in view of dismissal of Title Suit No. 515 of 2010. The entire case of the defendants-appellants is that they denied the title of plaintiffs and also denied that Ranjeet Sao has any right to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit premises. Moreover, the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff no. 1 has not been cancelled by any competent court. In the case of Shamim Ara Naz & Anr Vs. Mohammad Quamruddin reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 526, this court has held that "when the learned court below has come to a prima facie finding that the plaintiff established his ownership over the suit premises then the application ought not to have been rejected on the ground that there was no evidence of payment of rent by the defendant to the Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025 plaintiff or their vendor. It is well settled that in a case where defendant denies the relationship, the court has to examine the material then available and come to a conclusion whether such denial or a dispute as to title of the plaintiff is bonafide or a mere pretence and if the court finds that there is no prima facie merit in the said denial then the defendant can be called upon to make deposit of rent.'' In the present case, although the defendants- appellants denied the title of the plaintiffs and claim their right as title holder, the said claim has been dismissed in Title Suit No. 515 of 2010. It is apparent from the record that the suit was filed only for personal necessity on the ground contained in Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(e) of the BBC Act. No claim or relief has been sought for arrears of rent. Both the courts erred that the present suit has been filed for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and also default in payment of rent but there is no claim for arrears of rent. On this aspect, the plaintiffs have reserved their right to take another remedy on the ground of default. The question of personal necessity is question of fact which is not usually interfered. So far the finding with regard to personal necessity is concerned, the appellate court has discussed the necessity of the plaintiffs for their residence. After considering the pleadings as well as evidence adduced by them, the relationship of landlord and tenant has been Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025 proved between the plaintiffs and defendants. Further, on the other parts of the purchased property through two other eviction suits, plaintiffs have been declared landlord of the suit premises.