Jharkhand High Court
Bimal Rajak vs Parmila Devi on 9 September, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 202 of 2017
Bimal Rajak, S/o Late Mahabir Rajak, R/o - Marar, Ranchi Road,
P.O. & P.S. - Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh
... ... Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
Versus
1. Parmila Devi, W/o Rajendra Prasad Sahu
2. Hira Lao Sao, S/o Rajendra Prasad Sahu
Both No.1 and 2 R/o - Marar, Ranchi Road, P.O. & P.S. -
Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh
... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
---
17/09.09.2025
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated
17.02.2017 and decree dated 21.02.2017 passed in Eviction Title
Appeal No. 6 of 2014 by the learned District Judge-II, Ramgarh
affirming the judgment dated 13.05.2014 (decree dated 21.05.2014)
passed in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2008 by learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Hazaribagh. The suit seeking eviction of the defendant was
decreed and the learned 1st appellate court has affirmed the judgment.
Consequently, the defendant (the alleged tenant), is under appeal
before this Court.
2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated
29.07.2021 by referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90 (Rajendra Tiwary Vs.
Basudeo Prasad and Another) and the following substantial questions
of law were framed for consideration:
(i)Whether in a summary proceeding where the relationship
of landlord and tenant is not admitted, the
defendant/appellant/appellant can be evicted from a suit
property?
(ii) Whether plaintiffs have to file suit for right, title, interest
and recovery of possession before the appropriate forum?
Arguments of the appellant
3. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant, while assailing
the judgments passed by the both the learned courts, has submitted
that the core issue involved in this case is as to whether there was
landlord-tenant relationship in view of the Kirayanama which was
exhibited as Exhibit-1. He submits that the alleged Kirayanama is
dated 19.09.1984 which is unilaterally executed by the father of the
defendant (whose signature was disputed) stating that he would pay
Rs. 60/- per month as rent. He submits that the Kirayanama neither
contains the details of the property which is given in tenancy nor it
was signed by the plaintiffs nor any period of tenancy has been
mentioned therein, nor the Kirayanama has been duly registered.
4. He submits that ex-facie the Kirayanama could not be said to
be an agreement of tenancy and therefore, no reliance could have been
placed by the learned courts on Kirayanama (exhibit-1).
5. It is submitted that the exhibit-1 was allegedly signed by
Mahavir Rajak - the father of the defendant, but the defendant had
disputed the signature of Mahavir Rajak over the Kirayanama but the
plaintiffs did not take any steps to get the signature duly verified from
any expert. He has also submitted that as per the Kirayanama, there
were three witnesses and one of the three witnesses has been
examined as P.W. 3. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has stated that
Kirayanama was also signed by the plaintiff no.1, but admittedly, the
exhibit- 1 does not contain the signature. He submits that this
demolishes the veracity of the evidence of P.W. 3 but the learned
courts have failed to consider this aspect of the matter and thus the
findings of the learned courts are perverse. The learned Senior
counsel has submitted that the Kirayanama has not been duly proved
and hence there is no relationship of land lord and tenant between the
parties.
6. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant has further referred
to sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and has
submitted that the Kirayanama was required to be signed by both the
parties and in absence of signature of the plaintiff no.1, the unilateral
act of the father of the defendant could not be taken into consideration
and this submission is without prejudice to the submission that the
signature was not the signature of the father of the defendant on the
alleged Kirayanama (exhibit-1).
7. The learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1974 SCC OnLine
Patna 37 (Garaj Narain Singh Vs. Babulal Khemka) and has referred
to paragraph 11 thereof to submit that in the said case, there was a
unilateral deed of lease which was exhibit- 5 and it was held to be
invalid and it was held that the deed being a registered document, it
was imperative for both the parties to have signed it in order to create
a valid lease under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.
8. The learned Senior counsel has then referred to the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
1216 (Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra
and Another) (paragraph 15) and has submitted that the unregistered
document can be used for collateral purpose, but when the very nature
and character of possession is in dispute, the said Kirayanama could
not have been taken into consideration being an unregistered
document.
9. The learned Senior counsel then referred to the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90
(Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad and Another) and submitted
that it has been held that the very existence of landlord-tenant
relationship is the foundation for an eviction petition under the Rent
Control Statute and when the relationship is not found to be
established, any further enquiry into the title is beyond the scope of
the court exercising jurisdiction under the statute. He has also
submitted that under the Rent Control Act, the Court exercises limited
jurisdiction to try suit specified in the rent statute and considering the
facts of this case, the plaintiffs are certainly free to institute a suit for
declaration of their title and for recovery of possession, but in a case
where the landlord-tenant relationship is in dispute, the Rent Control
Act seeking eviction is not applicable.
Arguments of the respondents.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
while opposing the prayer has referred to paragraph 16 of the appellate
court's judgement and submitted that under Section 15 of the Bihar
Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, the learned court had
directed the defendant to deposit the fair rent decided by Sub-
Divisional Officer as House Rent Controller, but the defendant did not
abide by the order of the learned trial court and ultimately his defense
on the point of eviction as tenant was directed to be struck off by order
the dated 29.11.2010 by observing that the defendant will not cross-
examine the plaintiffs witnesses on the point of eviction. The learned
counsel submits that the order of the rent controller was Exhibit 2/A
and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide Exhibit 2/B and
those orders have become final. The learned courts have also taken
into consideration the aforesaid Exhibits 2/A and 2/B while deciding
the case.
11. The learned counsel has also submitted that when a suit is filed
under the special statute of rent control, there is no absolute bar on the
part of the trial court to enter into the issue of title even in a summary
proceeding in order to ascertain as to whether there is relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned counsel submits
that merely because the title has been considered and finding has been
arrived in order to come to the finding of landlord-tenant relationship,
the same does not preclude either party to get their title declared
through a regular suit.
12. The learned counsel has further submitted that the courts have
discussed all the materials on record to come to a finding. He has also
submitted that in the proceeding before rent controller, the defendant
had claimed that they were in possession of the property by virtue of a
gift by the vendor's vendor of the property in 1942 and before the
learned trial court in the present case they claimed that they were in
permissive possession since last 70 years.
13. The learned counsel has also submitted that the defendant
claimed that they were in possession of the property since 1942 but
the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property by Exhibits 3, 3/A and
3/C which are dated 22.02.1956, 22.07.1956 and 22.01.1957 and at no
point of time, the sale deeds of the plaintiffs was challenged by the
defendant.
14. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the allegation
that Exhibit 1 i.e. the kirayanama was not signed by the father of the
defendant is concerned, it was for the defendant to take steps for
getting the signature duly examined. He has submitted that if the
defendant disputed the signature, it was for them to bring on record
the admitted signature and take steps for getting the same examined
through handwriting expert but no such steps were taken from the side
of the defendant. The learned counsel has submitted that the
consequence of non-registration of Exhibit 1 i.e. the kirayanama has
also been considered by the court and the court has relied upon all the
other materials on record also to come to a finding of landlord-tenant
relationship.
15. The learned counsel has referred to the judgement passed by
this Court reported in (2006) 3 JLJR 69 (Sri Suresh Singh & Anr.
Vs. Srimati Arti Choubey & Anr.) to submit that it is open to the trial
court to incidentally enter into the question of title with respect to the
suit property. The learned counsel has submitted that the courts have
given concurrent finding that the defendant has failed to place any
material on record to show permissive possession over the property.
He has submitted that both the courts have scrutinized the materials on
record and have come to a definite finding that there was landlord-
tenant relationship between the parties. He has submitted that merely
because the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not
admitted, the same cannot be a reason not to entertain a proceeding
under the Building Control Act and the court has to see the prima
facie title to come to a conclusion as to whether there exists any
landlord-tenant relationship. The learned counsel has submitted that
accordingly the 1st substantial question of law is fit to be answered
against the appellant.
16. With respect to 2nd substantial question of law, he has submitted
that the final adjudication of right, title and interest with respect to the
property can certainly take place in regular suit and such a suit can be
filed either by the plaintiffs or the defendant.
Rejoinder argument of the appellant
17. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Section
101 of the Evidence Act to submit that the burden of proof was upon
the plaintiffs to prove the kirayanama (Exhibit 1) and also the
signature of the father of the appellant and therefore it was for the
plaintiffs to take steps to prove the signature of the father of the
defendant. The learned counsel has also submitted that it has come in
the evidence of the defendant that this kirayanama was filed in the
rent fixation case and it came to light for the first time in 2006 and
therefore the orders by the sub-divisional officer with respect to the
payment of fair rent was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiffs.
18. Arguments concluded.
19. Judgement is reversed.
20. Post this case day after tomorrow i.e. on 11.09.2025 for
"Judgement".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/Saurav
