Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Ragho Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 253 of 1954 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 01, 1956
BIHAR PRIVILEGED PERSONS HOMESTEAD TENANCY ACT, 1947 - SECTION 8(5) - Interpretation and Application - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Privileged Tenant - Homestead - Ejectment - Restoration of Possession - Local Enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, alleged landlords, challenged an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 8(5) of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, directing them to restore possession of four rooms to the opposite party, a Harijan, who was allegedly dispossessed from his homestead.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were landlords within the meaning of the Act, as they allowed the opposite party to occupy a portion of their fodder house, creating an implied landlord-tenant relationship. The opposite party was also considered a 'privileged tenant' as he satisfied the conditions of Section 2(j) of the Act. The disputed house was deemed a 'homestead' as per the Act's definition, and evidence showed that the petitioners had demolished four rooms and dispossessed the opposite party.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were landlords of the opposite party, and if so, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them. 2. Whether the opposite party was a 'privileged tenant' within the meaning of the Act. 3. Whether the disputed house was a 'homestead' as defined in the Act. 4. Whether there was evidence of dispossession of the opposite party from his homestead. 5. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to base his decision on the result of his own local inspection.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of 'landlord' in Section 3(4) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, read with Section 2(1) of the Act, to include even tenants who have under-tenants, thereby establishing the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the opposite party. 2. The court analyzed the definitions of 'privileged person' and 'privileged tenant' in Sections 2(i) and 2(j) of the Act, respectively, and concluded that the opposite party satisfied both conditions, including the implied liability to pay rent for the homestead. 3. The court referred to the definition of 'homestead' in Section 2(d) of the Act and found that the disputed house, including the demolished rooms, constituted a 'homestead' as it was used for residential purposes with the consent of the petitioners. 4. The court relied on evidence presented by the opposite party and his witnesses, as well as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's local inspection, to establish that the petitioners had demolished four rooms and dispossessed the opposite party from his homestead. 5. The court upheld the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's jurisdiction to conduct a local enquiry under Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948, and found that he had not solely relied on his local inspection but had considered it in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' application, upholding the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order directing the petitioners to restore possession of the four rooms to the opposite party. The petitioners were ordered to pay costs, including a hearing fee of Rs. 200 to the opposite party.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. In this application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have asked for a writ to quash the order dated 30-4-1954, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Arrah, under Section 8(5) of The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, being Bihar Act IV of 1948, as amended by the Bihar Act 42 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Opposite party have shown cause and, opposite party 4 has also filed a counter-affidavit
2. On 15-10-1953, the Sub-Divisional Officer received a petition from Deonarin Chamar. opposite party 4, to the effect that he was a Harilan & he and his family were being harassed in several ways, they were being threatened, and there was a likelihood of their being evicted from their house, by the petitioners. On receipt of this application, the Sub-Divisional Officer Issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause why they should not be proceeded against under the Act, and, also under the Bihar Harijan (Removal of Civil Disabilities) Act, 1949, which is Bihar Act XIX of 1949, and also asked the officer-in-charge, Tarari police station to make an immediate enquiry into the matter and submit his report.
3. On 30-11-1953, after perusal of the show cause petition filed by the petitioners, and, the report of the Officer-in-charge, Tarari Police station, the Sub-Divisional Officer decided to hold a local enquiry personally on 12-12-1953.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer visited the village Kurmurhi, where the homestead of opposite party 4 was situated, on the appointed date, and recorded a memorandum of his local inspection in his order dated 14-12-1953. He, thereafter, decided, on the same, date, that it was a fit case for action under Section 5 of the Act, and, accordingly, issued notices to both the parties, to adduce their evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their respective claims.
Both the parties examined witnesses. After hearing the parties, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order under Section 8(5) of the Act on 30-4-1954, although the date fixed for passing orders was 19-4-1954, and, directed that the petitioners should put opposite party 4 in possession of the four rooms, which they had demolished, and, enclosed within their angan, within a period of two months of the passing of the order.
5. It is against this order that the petitioners have moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and, obtained the rule, under consideration, from the High Court.
6. In support of the rule, Mr. Kailash Rai has contended, in the first place, that the petitioners are not landlords of opposite party 4, in that, they are themselves tenants, and, therefore, there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and opposite party 4 so as to attract the operation of the Act.
7. The petitioners, however, admitted that opposite party 4 was allowed by them to occupy a portion of their fodder house, where opposite party 4 was still living. But, it was contended by them that the possession of opposite party 4 was permissive, and, as such, it could not be considered that the house had been let out on rent, or on lease, or on any contract, to opposite party 4, so as to create the relationship of landlord and tenant between them.
8. This objection, on the ground that the petitioners were not the landlords of opposite party 4, was raised before the Sub-Divisional Officer, and, he has considered and disposed it of by his order dated 14-12-1953, and dealt with it also in his final order passed on 30-4-1954. He held that the word "landlord" also includes even tenants under whom under-tenants hold the land. In the present case, he found that, from the evidence, it was evident that the occupation of the homestead land by opposite party 4 had been with the implied consent of the petitioners, and, therefore, he held that the petitioners, were in the position of "landlord" vis-a-vis opposite par
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
