Jharkhand High Court
Sulochana Devi vs (A). Bina Devi on 1 July, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 106 of 2012
1. Sulochana Devi
2. Lakhan Rai
3. Bikrant Kumar Rai
4. Manju Devi
5. Anju Devi
6. Madhavi Devi .... .... Appellants
Versus
1(a). Bina Devi
1(b). Sanjay Kumar
1(c). Ajay Kumar
1(d). Neelam Devi
1(e). Punam Devi .... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 4, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
08 / Dated : 01.07.2024
1. This the defendant's second appeal against the judgment of affirmance by which
the plaintiffs' suit under Sections 11(i)(a)(c) and (d) of the B.B.C. Act, 1982 has
been decreed by both the courts below.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit property was purchased by him
by registered sale deeds on 24.09.1974 and thereafter he came into possession of
the same and constructed a Khapparposh Pukka house. The plaintiffs are
regularly paying Basauri rent in respect of the suit property. The defendant had
been inducted as tenant in respect of the house at a monthly rent of Rs.50/-
created by rent agreement dated 05.05.1980 signed by both sides. Default in
payment of rent, resulted in the suit for eviction being filed.
3. The case of the defendant is that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant
between plaintiffs and defendant. The suit property was taken by the defendant
from Lakhan Tudu in the year 1936 and he has been running dairy business on
the said land. The plaintiffs were not in possession of the land.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following main issues, inter alia, were
framed:
Issue No. II-- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant has been
established?
Issue No. III-- Whether the plaintiffs are the owners and landlords of the suit
property?
Issue No. IV-- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree under
Sections 11(i)(a)(c) and (d) of the B.B.C. Act, 1982?
Issue No. V-- Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent since
January, 1996 and onwards?
Issue No. VI-- Whether the plaintiffs bonafidely and reasonably require suit
premises?
Issue No. VII-- Whether the plaintiffs' need will be fulfilled by partial
eviction?
5. Learned Trial Court returned a finding of fact in favour of the plaintiffs on all
the issues and decreed the suit.
6. Learned First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of leaned Trial Court in
the judgment passed in Title Appeal No. 03 of 2006.
7. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the eviction suit was not
maintainable under the provisions of the B.B.C. Act, 1982 as there was no
landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. As a matter of fact, the
defendant had purchased the land from the vendor of the plaintiffs before the
plaintiffs came in possession of the same. In 1936 the defendant had taken Kurfa
settlement with respect to the suit land and since then he is in settled possession
of it. There is title suit bearing Title Suit No. 49 of 2007 pending between Khera
Tudu and Gopal Sah.
8. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants,
this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law is made out for
admission of the second appeal. The landlord and tenant relationship is a
question of fact, in which there is concurrent finding of both the courts below. In
this view of the matter, title cannot be pleaded as a defence in a suit for eviction
by the defendant under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.
Second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission with cost.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
Uploaded
