In a suit for eviction under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, the landlord is not required to prove title to the premises, and the tenant is estopped from challenging the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and general principles of estoppel.

Gurusharan Sharma, J.

1. The-plaintiffs as owners of the house standing over plot No. 449 in Mohalla Hamidganj, Municipal Ward No. 13 of Daltonganj-town filed Eviction Suit No.5 of 1989 under Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the defendant for eviction from the premises which is a portion of the said house consisting of two rooms on the ground floor with a courtyard, two verandas and a service latrine described in detail in the plaint.

2. According to the plaintiffs on 1.1.1985, the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit house on a monthly rental of Rs. 50.00 . The tenancy was for a fixed period for which an agreement (Kabuliat) was executed by the, defendant, but on the expiry of the above period, the defendant did not vacate the same. Further, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have become adult; the plaintiff No. 2 got married and number of family members increased. The plaintiffs as such were feeling difficulties in accommodation arid residence and so they required the suit house for their personal use and occupation.

3. The defendant in his written statement denied any relationship of landlord and tenants between him and the plaintiffs and claimed the suit premises to have been acquired by his grand-father and his possession thereon in his own right. He also denied execution of any agreement and/or payment of rent to the plaintiffs.

4. The trial court by the impugned judgment/order dated 16.12.1993 decreed the suit. This revision application under Sec. 14(8) of the Act has been filed by the defendant against the said order of eviction.

5. The petitioners counsel submitted that in a suit under Sec. 14 of the Act, there was no scope to go into the detailed consideration of question of title and record finding thereon. The finding of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been given only on the basis of the alleged Kabuliat (Exhibit 1) and Rent Receipts (Ext. 4 series) which were forged and fabricated documents. The defendants denied his signature thereon; still without getting an experts opinion in this regard, the trial court relied upon those documents and held that the defendant admitted himself to be a tenant under the plaintiffs and as such he was debarred from challenging the landlords title. The finding of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit house has been recorded by the trial court without any evidence in this regard. According to the learned Counsel, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their personal necessity as required under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act. The Trial Court has also not considered the question of partial eviction. For the aforesaid reasons, it has been submitted that the impugned judgment/order is fit to be set aside and that the plaintiffs suit be dismissed.

6. The counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand, submitted that on 1.1.1985 the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit house and on 7.1.1985 admitting himself to be a tenant, the defendant executed a Kabuliat (Exhibit 1). The defendant paid rent for which receipts (Exhibit 4 series) were granted to him by the plaintiffs and the defendant put has signature on the counterfoils of each of those receipts. In the circumstances, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, stood admitted and the defendant was estopped from challenging the plaintiffs title under the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiffs have proved their bona fide requirement of the entire suit premises on account of increase In the number of their family members. The defendant, on the other hand, has failed to discharge his onus and prove that the plaintiffs requirements would be satisfied by evicting him only from part of the premises and as such, there was no occasion for the court below to record a finding of partial eviction.

7. A perusal of the impugned judgment/order reveals