Entering into an agreement of purchase does not confer ownership, and personal necessity can be a ground for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. This revision petition has been preferred under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982 against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2001 passed by the Munsif, IInd, Bhagalpur in Title Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1996. The plaintiff Opposite partys case is that she had purchased the suit holding from Prabhat Chandra Mishra through registered sale deed dated 23-8-1995/24-8-1995 and her name has been recorded in Bhagalpur Municipality on the basis of her possession and she got her name mutated in the Shirista of State of Bihar and was granted receipts on payment of rent. Admittedly the defendant-petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises on the basis of monthly rental of Rs. 250 on the basis of a Kiryanama dated 5-7-1986 which has been marked as Exhibit D executed by the exiandlord the Prabhat Chandra Mishra in favour of the petitioner. According to the plaintiff he purchased the suit property to settle her handicapped and unemployed son Binod Kumar Poddar by starting a Medicine Shop and, as such, suit premises is badly required by the plaintiff for bonafide personal necessity in good faith. Hence, the suit was filed. According to the defendant he was a monthly tenant in the suit premises but as soon as an agreement for sale with Prabhat Chandra Mishra was made on 10-6-1995/19-6-1995 then the tenancy of the plaintiff had merged into his apparent ownership of the suit property being in possession and hence, the suit is not maintainable under the B.B.C. Act. The contention of the plaintiff regarding personal necessity as also been challenged tooth and nail. The defendant has also filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale against Prabhat Chandra Mishra in which the plaintiff has also intervened and the said suit is proceeded. The defendant has also claimed to have not carried out the terms and conditions as per the lease/Kiryanama between the defendant and the landlord Prabhat Chandra Mishra and in that way also the suit is bad. Another contention was raised to the effect that the defendant-tenant has never been attorned to the Plaintiff on her purchase and hence the eviction suit is not maintainable.

2. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Learned Court below framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:

1. Is the suit, as framed maintainable?

2. Has the plaintiff got cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises for her use and occupation reasonably and in good faith?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled to decree as prayed for?

6. To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

3. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties both oral or documentary the Court below held that the suit is maintainable in its present form and that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the plaintiff has got requirement of the suit premises for settling her handicapped and unemployed son by setting up a Medical shop and then decreed the suit by the impugned judgment.

4. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the defendant-petitioner has raised the maintainability of the suit on the ground that as soon as it could be proved from the side of the defendant that he had an earlier agreement regarding the purchase of the suit property and a huge amount has been advanced towards earnest money then the purchaser of the suit property is not in a position to evict the tenant. According to him the tenancy has been merged as soon as the agreement of sale has been entered into such tenancy had merged with his apparent heirs. In support of his contention he has referred to a recent judgment of the Apex Court as reported in (2000) 9 SCC 339 (R. Kanthimathi and Anr. V/s. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.). That was the case un