Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party vehemently contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and hence, the same does not require any interference by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that this revision is directed against the judgment of eviction suit and not a title suit and the revision is to be decided within four corners of the BBC Act. Learned counsel pointed out that Section 2(f) of the BBC Act records definition of landlord and submitted that even an agent can maintain a suit for eviction and in the present case earlier Civil Revision No. 1211 of 2004 was filed and vide order dated 03.01.2005 this Court held that even an agent who is collecting the rent can maintain a suit for eviction. Learned counsel further Patna High Court C.R. No.4 of 2015 dt.29-02-2024 submitted that Ext.1 has been assailed on the ground that when the said deed was executed, the plaintiff was aged more than 15 years. But the said contention is without any substance as adoption took place in 1973 and Ext. 1 was just recital of the same. Since the recital of adoption is by way of a registered document there would be presumption of its correctness so long as there is no rebuttal and it is for the party who disputes the adoption to prove to the contrary.

11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party Patna High Court C.R. No.4 of 2015 dt.29-02-2024 further submitted that in the present case on account of default in payment of rent as the defendant was required to deposit the rent every month but the defendant deposited the rent for five years in the learned trial court and thereafter stopped paying the rent and for this reason the defence of the defendant is fit to be struck off. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manmohan Kaur Vs. Surya Kant Bhagwani, reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 291 held that if the delay is not explained or the explanation is one which is not acceptable to the court then the court must strike off the defence. There is no discretion under Section 13 of the BBC Act and same proposition was earlier available in the previous Act Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 in Section 11A and this Court in the case of Chaganmal Jain Vs. Mali Ram Mantri & Anr., reported in BBCJ 1973 IV 157 held that the provision contained in Section 11A is mandatory. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and same be dismissed.

16. Further Section 2(f) of the BBC Act reads as under:-

(f) "Landlord" includes the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of the building, whether on Patna High Court C.R. No.4 of 2015 dt.29-02-2024 his own account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant."

Further in eviction suit the question whether the plaintiff was validly adopted son of late Sukhdeo Sahu or not could not be decided as declaration of status of plaintiff as adopted son of late Sukhdeo Sahu could be the subject matter of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. For the purpose of present case, I am of the considered opinion that sufficient material is available on record to show that the plaintiff would fall under the definition of landlord in Section 2(f) of the BBC Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad reported in AIR 2002 SC 136 held Patna High Court C.R. No.4 of 2015 dt.29-02-2024 that enquiry into title of the plaintiff is beyond the scope of the court exercising jurisdiction under the Act. Declaration of status of plaintiff cannot be sought in a proceeding under the BBC Act. Therefore, I do not find much merit in the submission of learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner challenging the landlord tenant relationship only on the ground that the plaintiff/opposite party could not be considered as a validly adopted son of the original landlord. I do not find any perversity in the consideration of evidence made on this account by learned trial court. For the reason the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner in the case of Tribhuvanshankar and Mahabir Ram (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case.