MANJU SINGH @ BABY Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole plaintiff-Kedar Nath Sahu filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-Jagdish Singh from a suit premises being building/structure and the land appertaining to Khata No. 74, Plot Nos. 137 and 138 corresponding to Holding No. 24/A of Ward No. 11- B situated at Madhukam, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for setting up business for two son-in-laws and also on the ground of sub-letting it to different persons. Thus, said suit for eviction was filed under Section 11(i) (c) as well as under Section 11(i) (a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short the Act). Subsequently, an amendment in the plaint was brought on 3.2.1989, whereby certain facts concerning bona fide requirement were added. When the written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant, another amendment was brought on 7.12.1990, whereby one more ground available for eviction under Section 11(i) (d) of the Act was pleaded, whereby eviction was sought on the ground of default in making payment of rent from October, 1986 to January, 1987. Consequently, decree for arrears of rent for the aforesaid period was also sought to be passed. Again on 15.12.1992, another amendment was bought, whereby eviction was sought under the general law on the basis of title over the suit premises and thereby the value of the suit was assessed at Rs. 20,000/- and the Ad valorem Court Fee was paid.

(2.) The case of the defendant made out in the written statement as also in the additional written statement is that there has been no relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant and the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not have any title or ownership over the suit premises. Further case is that the suit land was Parti Low land having ditches which was filled up and buildings/structures were made over the land by the defendant and got the water and electric connection and then started an industry in the name and style as "Jagdish Engineering Works" over which the defendant is in continuous uninterrupted possession since 1964 in assertion of his own right without any let, hindrance, claim or demand by or from the plaintiffs or any other persons and in this manner, the defendant has perfected his title by remaining in possession openly and adversely for more than the statutory period to the knowledge of all concerns including the plaintiff.

(3.) The number of issues were framed including the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as the issue relating to right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit premises as also the issue relating to adverse possession of the defendant over the suit premises. The plaintiff as well as the defendant adduced oral as well as documentary evidences in support of their cases. The plaintiff did adduce in evidence registered deed of sale (Ext. 1) under which one Mostt. Sahidan had conveyed right, title and interest of the land bearing Plot No. 136 to one Laxmi Narain Sahu, brother of the plaintiff. The registered deed (Ext. 1/b) was also adduced in evidence under which Ex-landlord had made settlement of the land bearing Plot No. 137 in favour of said Laxmi Narain Sahu. Certified copy of the deed of partition (Ext. 1/a), whereby suit land, bearing Plot Nos. 136 and 137 given to share of the plaintiff, was also adduced in evidence. That apart, other documents such as Rent Receipts (Ext. 2-2/a) Municipal Tax Receipts (Ext. 5-5/b) were also adduced. Similarly, the defendant also adduced documentary as well as oral evidences for proving the case of adverse possession. In course of time, the sole plaintiff as also the defendant died and hence, their heirs and legal representatives were substituted. The trial court after taking into account the evidences brought on record did find that the plaintiffs failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the plaintiffs even failed to prove their title over the land, in question, whereas the defendant succeeded in proving that he is coming in continuance uninterrupted possession in assertion of his rights since the year 1964 and thus has acquired indefeasible title thereto and has perfected it by remaining in possession openly and adversely to the knowledge of all concerns including the plaintiffs. While coming to such conclusion, it was held that though the plaintiffs on the basis of sale deed (Ext. 1) have claimed title over the land but they have failed to produce Hukumnama by which Mostt. Sahidan had acquired right, title and interest over the suit of Plot No. 136 who subsequently is said to have transferred the land under Ext. 1 to Laxmi Narain Sahu, brother of the original plaintiff-Kedar Nath Sahu, and that Ext.-1/b, under which it was claimed that the Ex-landlord had made settlement of Plot No. 137 in favour of the original plaintiff's brother, does not bear the signature of the settlee and thereby the said deed never conferred any title to the settlee and that Ext.-1/a, certified copy of the deed of partition, under which it was claimed that the suit plots came to the share of the original plaintiff, had never been proved legally and as such, it is not worth consideration. Thus, the suit was dismissed.