The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Rent Control Act and the establishment of the relationship of landlord and tenant based on evidence.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Section 14(8) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Control Act"?) was preferred by one Most. Manorama Devi/defendant/tenant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant/tenant") against judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2010 passed by learned Munsif 1st, Gaya in Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2005. By the said judgment and decree, the suit filed by the sole opposite party/plaintiff/landlord (hereinafter referred to as „plaintiff/landlord?) was allowed, with a direction to defendant/tenant to vacate the suit premises and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord within sixty days from the date of the judgment. Since during the pendency of the present revision petition, the defendant/tenant died, the present petitioner was substituted as petitioner, vide order dated 13-05-2015 passed on interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 3964 of 2013, which was filed for substitution.

2. The eviction order was passed on the ground of personal necessity. The defendant/tenant has pleaded that after filing of the eviction suit, the defendant/tenant appeared before the court below and after permission was granted to contest the suit, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant/tenant. The defendant/tenant in its written statement mainly raised an objection that the plaintiff/landlord was not the title-holder of the suit premises. According to the tenant, Holding no. 13 belongs to the family of one Radhe Krishna Dwivedi, whose ancestor had dedicated the suit property to the Lord Shiva after installing the deity in the temple constructed thereupon and they had continued to act as trustee and Sewait. It was further pleaded that alienation of the property, including the suit premises by Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi in favour of plaintiff's grand father, was clearly void and illegal, as the said property including the suit premises belongs to Lord Shiva and hence, nobody had right to alienate the said property. According to the defendant/tenant, the suit property was recorded in monthly survey plot no. 9766 "Ka to Cha", which could not have been the subject matter of the partition, which took place in the year 1948, with regard to the entire family property. It has also been pleaded by the tenant that Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi had made a wrong recital in the sale-deed regarding the allotment of the suit property to him in partition. The defendant/tenant claimed that she was tenant of Lord Shiva and she or her ancestors had never been tenant of plaintiff and never paid rent to him. The defendant/tenant claimed that eviction suit was itself not maintainable.

3. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant had advanced number of pleas to substantiate that plot, over which the suit premises i.e. a shop is standing, was never transferred to the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner/defendant was tenant of Lord Shiva and was paying rent to Lord Shiva through Sewait. To substantiate the argument that petitioner/tenant was not tenant of the plaintiff/opposite party, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ext. A to A/3 which were rent receipts issued by the Gaya Municipality in the name of one Bageshwari Pd. Dubey. He also referred to Ext. 'D' i.e. Deed of registered partition of the year 1948. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has argued that as per the registered partition deed i.e. Ext. 'D', the suit premises was not required to be transferred by the sale-deed in favour of ancestor of the plaintiff/opposite party. Besides aforesaid documents, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Ext. 'H' i.e. new survey khatian and Ext. 'J' i.e. copy of ordersheet dated 17-01-1991 in respect of objection case no. 55 of 1987 of the Gaya Municipal Corporation.

4. Before proceeding further, it is necessa