Jharkhand High Court
Sarwar Mirza And Others vs M.H. Khuzaima on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 87 of 2025
Sarwar Mirza and Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
M.H. Khuzaima ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate
: Ms. Shobha Rani, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. R.M. Khuzaima, Advocate
---
10/08.10.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants
were inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff as back as on 01.02.1996 for a
period of 11 months. The defendants continued to be a tenant and while
the tenancy was continuing, one agreement of sale dated 13.11.1997 was
executed between the appellant no. 1 and the plaintiff. Consequent
thereto, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid and Rs. 80,000/- remained
due which was to be paid at the time of Registry. He has further
submitted that the status of landlord and tenant relationship between the
parties had undergone a change upon execution of agreement of sale
dated 13.11.1997 (exhibit D). The learned submits that the plaintiff did
not have any title over the property, inasmuch as, P.W. 5 had admitted in
his evidence that the property was a Khas Mahal property. He submits
that the owner of the property is the State and the plaintiff could not have
entered into tenancy or even sell the property as the property was a Khas
Mahal property. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff has
defrauded the appellants by inducting the appellants as tenant and
entering into an agreement of sale.
3. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the suit
seeking specific performance of contract relating to agreement of sale
dated 13.11.1997 has already been dismissed and the appeal has also
been dismissed. The title suit regarding specific performance of contract
was Title Suit No. 171 of 2003 and the corresponding First Appeal was
Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2021.
4. However, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that since
the nature of relationship had undergone a change therefore, the
relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist post 13.11.1997 and
hence, the suit seeking recovery of possession on account of default in
payment of rent after 13.11.1997 was not maintainable. The learned
counsel has also submitted that as per the plaintiff, the defendants had
defaulted in payment of rent from 13.11.1997 till 09.07.2003 but the
claim for rent was made only for a period of 3 years prior to institution of
the suit. He has also submitted that the period of default, as recorded by
the learned trial court, is also for a period from 10.07.2000 to
09.07.2003.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 9
SCC 339 [R. Kanthimathi and Another Vs. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.)] and
has referred to paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of the said judgment to submit that
once there is an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property, the
relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist anymore and therefore,
the suit seeking eviction was itself not maintainable.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to internal
page 10 of the 1st appellate court's judgment and has submitted that the
fact stood admitted that the suit premises is a government lease land and
the plaintiff was not the lease holder, therefore, any agreement for
transfer of land by the plaintiff to the defendants will not fall within the
ambit of legal transfer because the plaintiff is not the bonafide owner of
the suit premises. He submits that in spite of recording such finding, still
the 1st appellate court's judgment upheld the judgment of eviction passed
by the learned trial court.
7. Arguments concluded.
8. Order is reserved.
9. Post this case on 15th October 2025 'for orders' in the
supplementary cause-list.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
