SUDHIR KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. NIRSI DHOBIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question which arises for decision in this case is whether the question of applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act to a sub-lease can be determined on the basis of the purpose for which the sub-lease is created or on the basis of the nature of the original tenancy. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the case to this Bench because it doubted the correctness of the decisions of Jado Singh v. Bishunath Lal, AIR 1942 Pat 71 and Shrikishun Lal v. Harihar Sah, AIR 1949 Pat 444.

(2.) I may briefly state the facts. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for declaration of title to, and eviction of the defendant first-party, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent-first-party) in this court, from, 1 katha of land with some tatti structures standing on it, on the north-western corner of plot No. 27, appertaining to khata No. 53 in Ward No. 1 of Supaul town, which has a total area of 5 kathas. Defendant-respondent No. 1 is a Dhobin, and defendant-respondent No. 2 is her son. I shall henceforth refer to them in the course of this judgment as the defendants because they have mainly contested the case.

(3.) Admittedly, one Chakrapani Singh held plot No. 27, which consisted of a residential house and compound, as a raiyat. After his death, his sons, Tribeni Prasad Singh and Baldeo Prasad Singh, succeeded him, Shrimati Jageshwari Kumari (defendant No. 4) and Shri Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (defendant No. 5), both being defendants-second party, are the successors of Tribeni and Baldeo, and they held the plot in equal shares. Under three registered sale deeds, dated the 19th August, 1950, the 28th December, 1951, and the 6th December, 1952, the plaintiff acquired the plot in its entirety from defendants Nos. 4 and 5. They gave notice to quit to the defendants, and thereafter applied to the House Controller under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, for their eviction. The defendants objected that there was no relationship of landlord & tenant between the plaintiffs and themselves. The objection succeeded, and the application for eviction was dismissed. The plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the present suit in 1954.