OM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. MUNNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against order of evictiol1 of the petitioner passed on 25.08.2003 by Munsif, Khagaria in Civil Eviction Suit No.2 of 2001/4 of 2001. The sole Opposite Party Smt Munni Devi was the plaintiff/landlady. Both the parties are represnented and heard at lenght.

(2.) THE plaintiff -opposite party filed ievi~Ji9n suit before Munsif, Khagaria against the defendant -petitioenr for his eviction on ground of personal necessity. The case was tried under procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Act. The plaintiff's case, as per the plaint, was that the suit premises, which is Schedule B, The plaintif had purchased it from Md. Israfil, Bibi Majda Khatoon being son and daughter of Abdul Razzaque and several others who were children of Md. Latifuddin by registered sale deed dated 20.11.2000. It may be mentioned that Abdul Razzaque and Md. Latifuddin were two brothers being two sons out of four of Majid Karim, the other two brothers being Gulam Rasul and Habibuddin. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had been inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by her vendor at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ - but inspite of attorneying the tenancy with the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay rent to her. Plaintiff has purchased the suit premises for starting cloth business for settling her son as the premises is located in market. Request to vacate premises having not been acceded to, the suit for eviction was filed. The defendant -petitioner appeared and filed affidavit seeking leave to contest the suit which granted. The said affidavit was treated as written statement. In the written statement, the defendant -petitioner denied the relationship of landlord -tenant. The defendant -petitioner asserted in the written statement that the suit premises was a part of a building on one katha six dhur land all of which had been in his occupation since 1957 to the knowledge of all including plaintiff and her vendor. That the suit premises was originally jointly owned by the four sons of Majid Karim and then jointly devolved of their children. It is further asserted that considering the long occupation of the premises by the defendant -petitioner, various decendants of Majid Karim started approaching the defendant -petitioner to purchase their shares in the said property. It is his case that Md. Israfil entered into an oral agreement with the defendant -petitioner{ in the year, 1992 to sell his alleged one fourth share for rupees one lac and, accordingly, the defendant -petitioner paid rupees five thousand and three hundred and balance was to be paid as and when demanded in future. Sale deed was to be executed after other three co -sharers sold their shares to the defendant -petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid oral agreement for sale and payment, it is said that defendant -petitioner was put in possession of the one fourth share of Md. Israfil as a prospective buyer. In January, 2001, defendant -petitioner came to know that Md. Israfil and others executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff -opposite party contrary to the oral agreement with him wich forced the defendant -petitioner to file Title Suit No.7 of 2001 in the Court of Sub Judge I. Khagaria against Md. Israfil and Smt Munni Devi, the plaintiff -opposite party for specific performance of contract and setting aside the sale deed as executed by Md. Israfil in favour of the plaintiff opposite party. It is alleged that the plaintiff -opposite party, on coming to know of the said suit, then filed the present eviction suit. It the meantime, the defendant got sale deeds executed from Md. Ali being one of the sons of Habibuddin, other son being Md. Abdul Gani and Md. Alauddin being the sole son of Gulam Rasul.

(3.) THE tenant in this revision has not challenged findings of personal necessity or any other finding except the finding in relation to the landlord -tenant relationship. Contention on his behalf was that no doubt he was, admittedly, a tenant of the entire house on the land since 1957. but pursuant to the oral agreement for sale with Md. Israfil and in part performance thereof, he was put in possession of that portion as a prospective buyer and, therefore, ceased to be a tenant. For specific performance of the said oral agreement, his suit was pending. It was as such, admitted in course of argument that his plea of oral agreement and his right was yet to be established and/or accepted by Court and the matter was still subjudiced. On the other hand, the sale by Md. Israfil and others by registered sale deed to the plaintiff -opposite party was not disputed. Therefore, the question is what was the status of the defendant in the present suit and his relationship with the plaintiff -opposite party.