Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgment on the ground that there could not have been any contract, of tenancy with the petitioner in December, 1975 as by then he was a minor and contract with a minor being void can not be terminated by resorting to the provision of BBC Act, 1982. In this connection he relied upon the case of Firm Bhola Ram Harbans Lal and Anr. v. Bhagat Ram and Ors., AIR 1927 Lahore 24.

7(b). Learned counsel for the petitioner further assailed the aforesaid judgment on the ground that finding in regard to existence of the contract of tenancy between the parties have been recorded on the basis of the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 6 and 7 and those witnesses according to him should not have been relied upon by the Court below as PW 3 was born on 10.1.74 and as such could not have deposed about creation of tenancy in December, 1975 as by then he was only 2 years old. PW 4 is sought to be impeached on the ground that he happens to be a friend of the husband of the plaintiff and as such interested witness and should not be relied upon. The evidence of PW 6 is assailed also on the ground that he is minor and further his mother another vendor of sale deed dt, 31:5.71 Exhibit 3. has filed eviction suit bearing No. 25/93 against the defendant. PW 7 being the husband of the plaintiff as such is the most interested witness and should not be accepted. Learned counsel further submitted that plaintiff having not been examined in this case the case should fail on that account alone.

7(c). He further submitted that finding recorded by the Court below that partial eviction from the tenanted premises is not possible is also erroneous as according to him two out of three rooms may be sufficient to cater to the needs of the plaintiff to accommodate the grain business of her husband and to establish oil mill for the son.

8(a). On the other hand counsel for the opposite party submitted that the plea that the contract of tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant being void, as in December 1975 the defendant was a minor could not be annulled by resorting to the provision of the BBC Act, is wholly erroneous as the defendant-petitioner in his written statement never raised any plea that he being a minor in December, 1975 contract of tenancy entered with him could not be enforced or terminated by resorting to the provision of the BBC Act, He further submitted that the plea of minority not raised in the written statement, no amount of evidence in regard to minority and the contract of tenancy being vitiated on that account could be looked into. In this connection learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Limited v. Mukund Staff and Association, reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 79 (SC) and the case of Bondav Singh and. Ors. v. Nehal Singh and Ors., reported in 2003 (4) Supreme Court cases 161, where the Hon'ble Court specifically ruled that it is settled law that in absence of plea no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be looked into. In regard to the age of the defendant-petitioner as recorded in the matriculation certificate Exhibit G, learned counsel, submitted that age recorded at the time of admission in the school, which is the basis of matriculation certificate, is generally reduced for obtaining benefit in later life. In this connection he relied upon the case of Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 282. He further . submitted that in any case petitioner-tenant should not be allowed to take advantage of his minority at the time he was inducted as a tenant, as then, as per his own admission, he was conducting his business independently. In the alternative learned counsel for the opposite party further submitted that in any case the defendant-petitioner attained majority while the contract of tenancy subsisted and continued to pay the rent thereby rectified the contract. In this connection learned counsel also placed reliance on the case of Firm Bhola Ram Harbans, (supra) in which Division Bench of Lahore High Court categorically ruled that minor on attaining majority is decidedly liable to be called to account for all the transactions that he entered into after attaining majority. In this connection he also relied upon the case of Narendra Lal Khan v. Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Ors., reported in AIR 1919 Calcutta 875.

9. While making the reply submissions learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his earlier submission and further submitted with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Tiwari v. Basudeo Prasad, reported in AIR 2002 SC 136 that no equitable relief could be allowed to the plaintiff-landlord on the basis of his alleged title over the suit property as considering the close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, matter is required to be thrashed out in partition suit and not in this summary proceeding under the BBC Act.

(b) In December, 1975 defendant-petitioner may be a minor according to his matriculation certificate even then as per his own evidence, he conducted his business affairs independently and attained majority within four years whereafter also he continued to pay the rent of the premises in question until April, 1992 as has been found by the Court below in due consideration of legally admissible evidence of PWs 4 and 7. The evidence of PW 4, has not even been challenged in cross-examination.

11. Further submission that the evidence of PWs 2, 4, 6 and 7 which have been relied upon by the Court below to accept the case of the plaintiff ought not to have been relied upon as they are interested witnesses also appear to be misconceived as in matter concerning family affairs only persons who are known to the family are available to depose in regard to the prevailing state of affairs as such reliance placed by the Court below over their deposition does not appear to be erroneous. Moreover inspite of my repeated request learned counsel for the petitioner failed to suggest any circumstance which should restrain me from accepting their evidence within the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 14(8) of the BBC Act, as thereunder this Court has only to ensure that the Trial Court has neither overlooked material evidence nor relied upon inadmissible evidence and its findings are not perverse and unreasonable. At this stage I am tempted to notice that the defendant petitioner has contradicted himself by espousing two contradictory stands one in the written statement i.e. subject matter or sale deed dt. 31.5.71 Exhibit 3 including the suit house is the self acquisition of Ramchandra Pd. the father of the defendant/petitioner and the other in exhibit 5, the application filed by the defendant/petitioner in Eviction Suit No. 8/93 in which it is admitted that the suit property is the acquisition of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant came in possession by virtue of an agreement to sell. In view of the two contradictory stands of the defendant/petitioner trial Court rightly ignored them and proceeded to accept the consistent case of the plaintiff on the basis of legally admissible evidence.