Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Arguments of the appellant.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant, while referring to the substantial question of law no. (A), has submitted that on bare perusal of the exhibit-A which is dated 14.08.1986, it is apparent that there was an agreement for sale with respect to the vacant land for a consideration amount of Rs. 15,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- was already paid. It is not in dispute that the defendant was in possession of the property.

5. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the agreement for sale (exhibit-A) reveals that the suit property was a vacant land and therefore, it is submitted that the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short "BBC Act") was not at all applicable. The learned Senior counsel submits that both the learned courts have failed to consider the agreement for sale (exhibit-A) properly which was an agreement for sale of vacant land and what was being paid as rent was the rent of vacant land @ Rs. 100/- and it was not rent for any building or constructed property over the land and therefore, on the face of the agreement (exhibit-A), the eviction suit was not maintainable under special law of "BBC Act"

Arguments of the Respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the substantial question of law no. (A) has submitted that both the learned courts considered the evidences on record particularly the evidence of D.W. -1 on the basis of which it has been concluded that in the year 1985 itself, when the tenancy had commenced between Narendra Prasad Sinha and the defendant, there was a structure over the premises but the roof was in a dilapidated condition. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 21 of the trial court's judgment relating to issue no. (1) and (2) and has submitted that every aspect of the matter has been considered while deciding the maintainability of the suit under the BBC Act, and the findings have been affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that tenancy was created way back in the year 1985 and at that point of time itself the suit land was not a vacant land and having a structure thereon, therefore, the provision of BBC Act was duly applicable. He 2025:JHHC:16282 submits that merely because in Exhibit- A there is a mention of vacant land, the same is not a conclusive proof. Exhibit- A is an unregistered document and the learned courts have considered the evidences on record to come to a finding that at the time of tenancy, the suit land was not vacant land.

47. In view of the aforesaid findings, there is no doubt that tenancy was created in the year 1985 with a room in dilapidated condition over the suit property and the room was repaired and converted into shop with roof of corrugated sheet and therefore the suit for eviction was maintainable under BBC Act. The finding in this connection has been arrived by the court by considering all the materials on record including exhibit-A that the suit was maintainable under BBC Act and 2025:JHHC:16282 the same does not call for any interference. The substantial question of law No. A is accordingly answered in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs- landlord) and against the appellant (defendant - tenant).