RANCHI, India, Nov. 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 17:
1. This 2 nd appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2024 (decree sealed and signed on 09.08.2024) passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2020 whereby the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2019 (decree signed on 11.11.2019) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Additional Munsif-I), Ranchi in Original (Eviction) Suit No. 21 of 2003. The suit was decreed, the 1st appeal was dismissed and the defendants are the appellants before this Court.
2. The suit was filed under the provisions of the then Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'BBC Act') seeking ejectment of defendants from the suit premises on account of default in payment of rent and also for a decree of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 25,200/- for 36 months i.e., from 10.07.2000 to 09.07.2003. Arguments of the appellants.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were inducted as tenant by the plaintiff as back as on 01.02.1996 for a period of 11 months. The defendants continued to be a tenant and while the tenancy was continuing, one agreement of sale dated 13.11.1997 was executed between the appellant no. 1 and the plaintiff. Consequent thereto, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid and Rs. 80,000/- remained due which was to be paid at the time of Registry. He has further submitted that the status of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties had undergone a change upon execution of agreement of sale dated 13.11.1997 (exhibit D). The learned submits that the plaintiff did not have any title over the property, inasmuch as, P.W. 5 had admitted in his evidence that the property was a Khas Mahal property, that is, leased out under the state. He submits that the owner of the property is the State and the plaintiff could not have entered into tenancy or even sell the property as the property was a Khas Mahal property. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff has defrauded the appellants by inducting the appellants as a tenant and entering into an agreement of sale.
4. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the suit seeking specific performance of contract relating to agreement of sale dated 13.11.1997 has been dismissed and the appeal has also been dismissed. The title suit regarding specific performance of contract was Title Suit No. 171 of 2003 and the corresponding 1 st Appeal was Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2021.
5. However, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the nature of relationship had undergone a change therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist post 13.11.1997 and hence, the suit seeking recovery of possession on account of default in payment of rent after 13.11.1997 was not maintainable. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the plaintiff, the defendants had defaulted in payment of rent from 13.11.1997 till 09.07.2003 but the claim for rent was made only for a period of 3 years prior to institution of the suit. He has also submitted that the period of default, as recorded by the learned trial court, is also for a period from 10.07.2000 to 09.07.2003.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqLIUC92Mjyb4zKkXnoO6OZ%2Bqv2b9wz%2Bl5KBgdAk%2Fr6nt&caseno=SA/87/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010405922024&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
