LAWS(PAT)-2005-1-11

ARBIND KUMAR PAL Vs. HAZIN BIBI KHAIRUN NISSA

Decided On January 31, 2005
ARBIND KUMAR PAL Appellant
V/S
HAZIN BIBI KHAIRUN NISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner doggedly challenges the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that the plaintiffs are claiming title on the basis of the alleged sale -deeds executed by intervenor's father which has been challenged in Title Suit No. 91/2001 by the intervenor and in that suit the plaintiff and the defendant of the instant Eviction suit have been impleaded as defendants. He further claimed that he has been looking after the properties and maintaining the tenancies since the life time of his father which would be apparent from the rent receipts and notices issued by his father to the tenants asking them to stop paying rent to his son, namely, the intervenor. He further claimed that two Eviction Suits had been filed, against the tenants in which his father's petition under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and had been rejected as prima facie he was not found to be the landlord . He also averred that the defendants have no document to prove the case of the tenancies and in their written statement filed in Title Suit No. 91/2001 they had stated that the intervenor -petitioner was collecting rent forcibly from certain tenants. Hence, according to him, there were sufficient material to show that the defendant was the tenant of the intervenor -petitioner who was also the owner of the suit property and it was incumbent on the learned Court below to implead him as party to the suit. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner produced two decisions, one reported in 2002 (1) SBR 277 and the other reported in AIR 1994 Cal 191, Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Kumkum Mittal and Ors.