Back
1995 Supreme(Pat) 485
PATNA HIGH COURT
P.K.Deb, J.
Shyam Sunder Kishan Lal
Versus
Sajjan Kumar Singhania
Civil Revision No. 40 of 1994 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 01, 1995
A person who is not the landlord as defined under the Bihar Buildings Control Act cannot maintain an eviction suit against a tenant.
Headnote:
EVICTION SUIT - MAINTAINABILITY - LANDLORD - PERSONAL NECESSITY - TRUST - WILL - LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - INTERPRETATION - BIHAR BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1982 - SEC. 2(F), 11(C).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed an eviction suit against the defendants, claiming ownership of the suit premises based on a will executed by the original owner, Jhabarmal Singhania, and letters of administration granted to their predecessor. The defendants contested the suit, arguing that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs were not the landlords as defined under the Bihar Buildings Control Act and that the suit premises belonged to a trust created by Jhabarmal Singhania.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs were not the landlords as contemplated under Sec. 2(f) of the Bihar Buildings Control Act and thus could not maintain the eviction suit against the defendants. The court further held that the plaintiffs did not have the right to evict the tenants as that right was conferred on the trustees under the will.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were the landlords as defined under the Bihar Buildings Control Act? 3. Whether the plaintiffs had the right to evict the tenants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the terms of the will executed by Jhabarmal Singhania and held that the plaintiffs' predecessor was not given absolute ownership over the suit premises. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs' predecessor was only given the right of enjoyment of the property and that all rights of transfer and eviction were restricted. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs did not have the right to evict the tenants as that right was conferred on the trustees under the will.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned judgment and order of eviction.
P.K.Deb, J.
1. This Revision petition is under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, rent & Eviction) Control Act has been filed by the above named defendants petitioners against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1994 passed by Shri S.N. Singh. Munsif. Ranchi in Eviction (Title) Suit No. 51 of 1992 whereby and where under the Eviction suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-Opposite Parties for eviction of the defendants-petitioners on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiffs-Opposite parties.
2. The facts of the case run as follows. One Jhabarmal Singhania was admittedly the owner of the suit premises described in the schedule of the plaint in the above mention Eviction suit along with other lands and during his life time, the defendants have been inducted as tenants on monthly rent in the suit premises comprised of three kathas 11 1/2 Chattak within municipal survey plot Nos. 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1786 and 1826 corresponding to Municipal holding No. 925 (old) New Holding No. 1304 within Ward No. II (Old) new Ward No. VI of Ranchi Municipal Corporation situated at Upper Bazar Ranchi. Before the death of Jhabarmal Singhania. he executed a deed of trust in respect of his properties as he was childless, but afterwards he changed his mind and executed a registered will on 22.8.1960 and it is the case of the plaintiffs that all his properties have been bequeathed by the will in favour of Parmenshwar Lal Singhania, predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and their uncle Hanuman Prasad Singhania. As per terms of that will front portion of the properties being shop premises along with godown and Chabutra on the ground floor of the building were given absolutely to Parmeshwar Lal Singhania father of the plaintiffs and the back portion after the godown was given to the uncle Hanuman Prasad Singhania and the wall in between the rooms was in joint possession of both the beneficiaries. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Jhabarmal Singhania, their father Parmeshwar Lal Singhania applied. before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for grant of letters of Administration, according to the will, which was registered as Case No. 57 of 1971 and the case was disposed of on 1.7.1975 by grant of letter of administration in terms of the judgment and by this the plaintiffs father became the absolute owner with respect to the properties bequeathed in his favour by the will. Afterwards on 9.5.1992 the father of the plaintiffs died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his sons and legal heirs who inherited the properties left by their father including that of suit properties, by virtue of will of Jhabarmal Singhania and letters of Administration granted on 1.7.1975. Thus according to the plaintiffs after the death of Parmeshwar Lal Singhania, who was the landlord during his life time, as per the will land letter of Administration, the plaintiff became the owners and landlords within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Bihar Buildings Control Act with respect to the portion of the building premises along with the suit property. The rooms in possession of the defendants consists of one shop room, one godown and a Chabutra as described in the Schedule of the plaint and the defendants were possessing the same as a monthly tenant an payment of rent of Rs. 121- per month, consequence of determination of fair rent at the instance of the defendants, by Order of Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller in the year 1976. It has further been stated in the plaint that instead of making payment of rent either hand to hand or by money orders to the plaintiffs, the defendants are depositing the monthly rents in the Treasury of false pretext that the rent of the suit premises are being demanded by other persons also. It is their further case that defendants have never paid nor tendered rent of building premises Since October, 1971 upto the date of filing of the suit, but for the present they are filing the suit for eviction
