RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. T.N. Maitin, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The defendants in the suit for eviction are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment and decree of affiance granting the eviction decree to the plaintiffs as prayed.

(3.) The material facts necessary for consideration in the context of the present appeal are that the appellants were inducted in the suit premises as monthly tenant by the predecessor of the plaintiffs. It was the case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint that the suit premises which was let out to the defendants comprised of two rooms, one big shed and vacant land and the monthly rental was Rs.2,000/-. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants committed default in payment of rent from the month of April 1992. The plaintiffs further asserted that the plaintiff no.2 was an unemployed engineer and the suit premises was required for starting his own business therein. On the other hand, the defendants' case as pleaded was that the tenancy was created with regard to only vacant piece of land for the purpose of establishing saw mill by the defendants and the defendants after filling up the ditch constructed a shed, temporary room, boundary wall, gate etc and started their business. The defendants further claimed that there had been agreement for sale between the defendants and the original landlord (predecessors of the plaintiffs) for sale of the suit premises to the defendants for Rs. 4,55,000/- and total Rs. 60,000/- was paid by way of advance on 28.07.1986 and also subsequently. It was also the case of the defendants that the sale deed as agreed could not be executed due to the death of the original landlord but the said agreement for sale was acknowledged by the plaintiffs who were the heirs of the original landlord and who also received Rs. 50,000/- through cheque on 05.05.1992 as part of the consideration money with further agreement that no rent would be payable by the defendants from April 1992. The defendants also questioned the maintainability of the eviction suit under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as B.B.C.Act) on the base that the tenancy was with regard to vacant land.