A tenant cannot become an owner unless the landlord agrees to sell the property and it is transferred in favor of the defendant.

Banwari Lal Yadav, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (compendiously "the Code") in a suit for eviction of the defendant respondent from the suit premises and for recovery of the arrears of rent of Rs. 675.

2. The plaintiffs appellants have filed the suit claiming that the suit premises. (Holding No. 46 of old Ward No. 8 and New Ward No. 15 of Purnea Municipality) belongs to the plaintiffs and that the defendant was admitted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 75.00 . The rent was being paid by the defendant to Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee (plaintiff appellant No. 1) and the defendant used to get receipt of the same. It is asserted that the defendant committed breach of condition of the tenancy and erected a pucca Khaparposh shed and placed attached hut in the suit premises and also established a printing press without any permission from the plaintiffs-landlords, and that the defendant also cut away several trees situate in the compound of the suit premises. Since August, 1982 the defendant defaulted in making payment of the rent to the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs had no other option but to file the instant suit with the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The averments made in the suit and relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant were denied by the defendant-respondent. Even though it was admitted that the defendant-respondent was a tenant of the plaintiffs-appellants at the fate of only Rs. 60.00 per month, but no receipt was given to the defendant. It is further asserted on behalf of the defendant that on the Ist of June, 1971 the plaintiff himself agreed to get the repairs of the suit house done and agreed to sell the suit premises to the defendant on a consideration Rs. 30,000.00 . Out of that, a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 was paid to plaintiff No. 1. Thereafter 50 per cent of the amount was paid on 19.11.71 and on 13.1.72 by a cheque drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Purnea and so on. The defendant did not violate any condition of tenancy and was not in arrears of rent, and consequently the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial court framed seven issues, four of which are given below:

(i) Whether the defendant has got title over the suit land, as alleged by him?

(ii) Whether there is any relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant?

(iii) Whether the defendant has committed any fault in giving rent; and

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 675.00 as arrears of rent?

5. The trial court, after considering the evidence of the parties and the materials on record, held that the suit was maintainable and in respect of the issues that whether the defendant has got any title over the land in dispute and whether the same still subsists, it was held that the defendant has not proved his title over the suit land on the basis of any alleged agreement for sale and that the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant still subsists, and ultimately it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs claimed by them. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant was directed to give vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiffs within a period of two months from the date of the order.

6. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court a First Appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Purnea. The appeal was, however, heard by the 7th Additional District Judge, Purnea and the same was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

7. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the plaintiffs-appellants did not agree for transfer of the suit premises to the defendant, nor there was any such agreement on 1.6.1971 and the payment of the amount alleged to be made by the defendant was al