MOST QURAISA KHATOON Vs. S P N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the Munsif-III, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 30 of 2011 by which the petition filed by the petitioner on 15.7.2011 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent had filed Eviction Suit No. 30 of 2011 against the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the suit premises on the basis of a registered sale deed of the year 1941. The petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement in which a dispute was raised with regard to the title of the plaintiff (respondent) over the suit land. The petitioner also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a plain reading of the plaint it is clear that the suit has been filed under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and thus when the Act prescribed a summary procedure, the basic criteria is that there should be a relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. In the present case, he submits that when the suit premises had been settled in the name of the husband of the petitioner much earlier in the year 1934 itself, there is serious dispute with regard to the title and thus there cannot be a presumption with regard to landlord-tenant relationship. It is further submitted that in the entire plaint, there is no mentioning of the dates on which the petitioner or her husband came to be a tenant or the cause of action, that is, failing to pay the rent, arose. He thus submits, that for the reasons aforesaid, the plaint not disclosing a cause of action, the Court ought to have allowed the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code and rejected the plaint.