SUDHIR KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. B N SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (compendiously "the Code") in a suit for eviction of the defendant respondent from the suit premises and for recovery of the arrears of rent of Rs. 675.

(2.) THE plaintiffs appellants have filed the suit claiming that the suit premises. (Holding No. 46 of old Ward No. 8 and New Ward No. 15 of Purnea Municipality) belongs to the plaintiffs and that the defendant was admitted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. THE rent was being paid by the defendant to Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee (plaintiff appellant No. 1) and the defendant used to get receipt of the same. It is asserted that the defendant committed breach of condition of the tenancy and erected a pucca Khaparposh shed and placed attached hut in the suit premises and also established a printing press without any permission from the plaintiffs-landlords, and that the defendant also cut away several trees situate in the compound of the suit premises. Since August, 1982 the defendant defaulted in making payment of the rent to the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs had no other option but to file the instant suit with the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) THE present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. THE learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the plaintiffs-appellants did not agree for transfer of the suit premises to the defendant, nor there was any such agreement on 1.6.1971 and the payment of the amount alleged to be made by the defendant was also denied. It was also urged that the instant suit was filed for the relief under Section 11 of. the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short "the Act"), as there has been breach of condition of the tenancy, inasmuch as the defendant has raised construction and cut away 'the orchard and trees which were standing in the compound of the suit premises. THE stand of the tenant cannot be converted into ownership of the house of the plaintiffs or the landlord unless the plaintiffs agree to sell the same and it is transferred in favour of the defendant. But the ownership with all its characteristics was not proved by the defendant. THE necessary corollary is that a tenant cannot become owner. THE substantial question of law was involved in the Second Appeal and the said question has been incorrectly decided.