Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Deepak Kumar Verma
Versus
Ram Swarup Singh
Civil Revision No. 538 of 1990 ;
Decided On : APRIL 25, 1991
EVICTION SUIT - RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT - TITLE - COURT FEE - JURISDICTION - SMALL CAUSE COURT PROCEDURE - RES JUDICATA - ORDER VII RULE 7 CPC - DISCRETION OF COURT - COMPLICATED QUESTION OF TITLE - AD VALOREM COURT FEE - PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, SEC. 23 - BIHAR BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1982, SEC. 14(8).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed an eviction suit against the defendants alleging that they are their tenants and he requires the suit premises for his personal occupation bona fide and in good faith. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and claimed that they were in possession of the suit property in their own rights as absolute owners. The trial court held that the plaintiff has prima facie title to the suit holding and land and that there exists relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties. The defendants filed a revision application challenging the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that in a suit for eviction, wherein special procedures laid down under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 are to be followed, a complicated question of title cannot be decided. The court also held that such a question can be decided only on payment of court fee on the valuation of the suit irrespective of the fact as to whether, the court will have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same if a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was filed in respect of the same property.
Issues: 1. Whether in a suit for eviction, wherein special procedures laid down under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 are to be followed, a complicated question of title can be decided? 2. Whether such a question can be decided only on payment of court fee on the valuation of the suit irrespective of the fact as to whether, the court will have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same if a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was filed in respect of the same property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that in a suit for eviction, wherein special procedures laid down under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 are to be followed, a complicated question of title cannot be decided. The court reasoned that Sec. 14 of the Act provides for a special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement or on the ground of expiry of the period of lease as specified in Clause c or clause V of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 11. The court further held that Sec. 14 is a special provision and shall prevail over the general provisions contained in the said Act even in relation to the procedural matters. 2. The court held that such a question can be decided only on payment of court fee on the valuation of the suit irrespective of the fact as to whether, the court will have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same if a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was filed in respect of the same property. The court reasoned that in a case where a court tries a suit which is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction, its decision will be a nullity and will not operate as res judicata.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision application and set aside the impugned order. The court held that the trial court ought not to have decided the complicated question of title of the parties in this case.
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. This application under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)-Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to and called, for the sake of brevity, as the said Act) arises out of a judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1990 passed by Md. Zafar Imam, 3rd Additional Munsif, Giridih in Eviction Suit No. 26/6 of 1988-90.
2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the aforementioned Eviction suit against the defendants/petitioners alleging therein that the defendants are their tenants and he requires the suit premises for his personal occupation bona fide and in good faith.
3. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The plaintiff-opposite party has contended that one Muni Rai son of late Kheman Rai was originally the owner of the lands and house bearing Giridih Municipality Holding No. 343 (old) and 314 (new) Ward No. 1 situated at Mouza Makatpur, Giridih. Said Muni Rai sold the afonnentioned holding to one Shiva Shahkai" Mahto and Sommaa Mahto alias Chutari Mahto son of Dilo Mahto by virtue of a registered deed of sate dated 31-3-1971. Shiva Shankar Mahto died leaving behind him his wife and son Tip Narain Singh, who later sold 2 kathas 14 chhataks of land along with house standing thereon to Luxman Ram by virtue of a registered dead of sale dated 4-12-1968. Luxman Ram in turn, sold the said piece of land to the plaintiff by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 3-9-197S for valuable consideration and put the plaintiff in possession thereof. It is the further case of the plaintiff that aforementioned Somman Mahto alias Chutari died leaving behind his wife Mosst, Bhagia who sold an area of one kaiha of laud to one Bhatani Devi by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 3-12-1966. Bhatani Devi is turn sold the said land along with house standing thereon to the plaintiff by executing a registered sale-deed dated 23-9-1969 and put the plaintiff in possession thereof. It is also the case of the plan tiff that later on in order to meet some legal necessity, aforementioned Mosst. Bhagia and one Ramchandra Mahto, wife and son of lata Sonarnan Mahto alias Chutari Mahto also sold I katha 6 1/2 dhurs of land along with a house standing thereon to the plaintiff by execution of a sale-deed dated 10-4-1975 over which the plaintiff came in possession. Thus the plaintiff by virtue of aforementioned sale-deeds dated 23-2-1969, 3-9-1975 and 10-4-1975 has acquired right, title and interest as also possession over the entire 4 kathas 14 chataks and 6 1/2 dhoors of land.
4. On the other hand, the ease of defendant/petitioners is that the plaintiff/opposite party has no right, title and interest over the suit property. They denied that Sonman Mahto had any alias name Chutari Mahto, rather Shiva Shankar Mahto, Sonman Mahto and Chutari Mahto were three different persons and full brothers. According to them, holding No. 343, Ward No. 1 was acquired by Shiva Shankar and Sonman jointly. Chutari had already separated and as such he was never in possession over the said holding. Sonman died in state of jointness and his share was inherited by Sheo Shankar Mahto who came in inclusive possession over the said holding. After the death of Sheo Shankar, his son Tip Narayan inherited his property and got his name mutated in respect of holding No. 343 (new 514) Ward No. 1 on 294-1965.
5. The defendants have also contended that it is also incorrect that Tip Narayan Singh in the capacity of karta of the joint family sold 2 kathas 14 chhataks of land to Laxraan Ram and Laxman Ram in tarn sold the same to the plaintiff and put him in possession. It is the case of defendants that there was no legal necessity in the joint family and no consideration was paid to Tip Narayan Singh on. account of the alleged sale-deed dated 4-12-1968 and Laxman Ram never came in possession of the land. Likewise the plaintiff has also not come in possession of the land. Both the sale-deeds aforementioned are Illegal, inoperative, wit
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
