In an eviction suit, the court's role is limited to determining the relationship of landlord and tenant and cannot adjudicate on disputed questions of title.

S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. This civil revision application has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1995 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Godda in Title Eviction Suit No. 1/91. The decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party on the ground of personal necessity and expiry of terms of tenancy since 31.12.1990.

2. The Title Eviction Suit No. 1/91 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner. The plaintiff opposite party claimed that he is recorded tenant of Jamabandi no. 10 of plot no. 533 of village-Jamua having obtained the same by settlement from the Bhudan Committee, Deoghar, confirmed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Godda. Thereafter the plaintiff constructed the suit premises and subsequently inducted the defendant-petitioner as tenant. According to him, an agreement was executed by the parties that the defendant will pay rent of Rs. 300/- per month to the plaintiff and the lease will continue for the period from 1.3.1988 to 31.12.1990. It was claimed that the lease period expired on 31.12.1990. The plaintiff claimed personal necessity of the entire premises for starting an agency of chemical manufacture and alleged that in spite of notices given to defendant-petitioner, he having not vacated the same, the plaintiff had to file the aforesaid eviction suit.

3. The defendant-petitioner appeared in the said suit and sought leave to contest the suit. According to the defendant, he is the owner of the suit premises having right and title over the same. It was claimed that the defendant purchased the suit premises on 22.1.1937 from the recorded tenant and since then accrued right and title over the suit premises. The defendant further claimed adverse possession. He also disputed the title of the plaintiff on the ground that the settlement made by the Bhudan Committee in favour of the plaintiff was invalid having passed without following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of Bhoodan Yagna Act. Further, according to the defendant, the suit premises having been purchased by him on 22.1.1937 from the recorded tenant, the sons of said recorded tenant had no jurisdiction to donate the land in favour of Bhoodan Committee in the year 1969 and thereby settlement in favour of' the plaintiff-opposite party was void. According to the defendant, as the matter relates to disputed question of title, the suit for eviction in terms with Section 11 (1)(c) & (e) of the B.B.C. Act was not maintainable.

Counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that there being a disputed question of title, the court below should have returned the plaint to the plaintiff- opposite party to file appropriate court. He relied on a decision of this court reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 541. The counsel for the defendant petitioner also relied on unreported Division Bench decision in Civil Revision No. 1694 of 1991, disposed of on 20.9.1995, by which a Division Bench of this court affirmed the decision given by the learned single Judge of this court reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 541.

Counsel for the defendant-petitioner further challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and submitted that the Kurfanama was a forged document. According to him, there was no personal necessity of the plaintiff and the court below failed to decide the matter relating to partial eviction, which was mandatory.

4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party, while supported his claim on the basis of settlement made in his favour by the Bhoodan Committee submitted that there was no specific challenge that was made by the defendant relating to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The court below after taking into note the oral and documentary evidences came to a definite conclusion that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

Admittedly, Jaldhar Mahto and others were the recorded tenant. Th