Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KHATIM REZA, J.
Civil Revision No.1 of 2018
(18.10.2024)
Smt. Sima Mishra & Ors. ... Petitioners
vs.
Smt. Usha Mishra ... Opp. Parties
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 68 – Sale deed can be set aside only by a competent Civil Court – There is no scope for cancelling of sale deed unilaterally executed without knowledge and consent of other parties to sale deed and without complying with provision of Sections 32 and 32 A of Registration Act – Power of cancelling and declaring registration as null and void vests with Civil Court – Unless there is declaration by Civil Court that deed is vitiated by fraud, a registered deed cannot be cancelled by Registrar – Registration Act does not confer such power on Registrar to cancel registered instrument unilaterally. (Para 18)
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 – Sections 11(1)(e) and 14(8) – Eviction of tenant on the ground of personal necessity – Plaintiff/opposite party purchased suit premises through two registered sale deeds – Sale deeds are valid unless sale deeds are not declared null and void by a competent Civil Court – Petitioner is rightful owner of suit property well within meaning of BBC Act and petitioner is entitled to sue existing tenant on the ground of personal necessity even if tenant has not accepted his tenancy under him – Petitioners are vendor of opposite party as they executed had sale deed in favour of plaintiff/opposite party – Transfer took place with all incidents of right, title and interest of vendor in favour of vendee – There is specific case of plaintiff that defendants entered into tenancy of plaintiff – Question of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties is a question of fact – Trial Court rightly held that defendants/petitioners are tenant of plaintiff/opposite party – Plaintiff has bonafide personal requirement of suit premises which appears to be legal and proper – Once personal necessity is proved, onus shifts on tenant to show that partial eviction shall satisfy personal necessity of plaintiff – Personal necessity of plaintiff/opposite party cannot be satisfied with partial eviction of defendants/petitioners from suit premises – Plaintiff is entitled to bring suit for personal necessity and it is in good faith – Judgment and order passed by court below for eviction affirmed – Civil Revision Application dismissed. (Paras 20 to 24, 25, 26 an 27)
Khatim Reza, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Civil Revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as BBC Act) against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2017 passed by the Munsif-II, Sadar, Bhagalpur, in Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2006, which was filed for seeking eviction of the defendants/petitioners for the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity alone.
3. The plaintiff has pleaded that she along with her family members require the suit premises for her residence therein as she is presently residing in a tenanted premise. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants.
4. The brief facts of the case is that plaintiff/opposite party is the owner and land lady within the meaning of BBC Act in respect of the suit premises which was purchased by the plaintiff from Shri Murari Mishra, Narendra Mishra and Stayendra Mishra besides other minors through two registered sale deeds on 01.02.1996 after payment of full consideration amount for which separate money receipts were granted by the lenders of the deeds and after purchase, the plaintiff mutated her name in the revenue records of State of Bihar as well as in the record of Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation on payment of rent/taxes obtaining up-to-date rent receipts. It is further pleaded that plaintiff after purchase constructed four rooms, veranda having brick walls and temporary thatched roofs and construction was going on and there remained some parti land also. The defendants were vendors of the said sale deeds and were residing and carrying on business of flour mills and others in their own portion of land which is adjacent to west of the suit land.
5. It is further contended that as husband of the plaintiff is in service outside Bhagalpur so the plaintiff was not in a position to live in her newly constructed house at the time of construction and the defendants approached the plaintiff to look out the premises to the defendants for some time and will vacate the same whenever required by the plaintiff.
6. It is further pleaded that the defendants are the members of a joint family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and the defendants came in occupation of three rooms of the aforesaid premises since May, 2000 on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- only. The rent of each month was payable by the last date of each succeeding months. The defendants have paid the monthly rent of the suit premises till the month of August, 2005.
7. Further case of the plaintiff, is that now the family members of the plaintiff have increased and her daughters were aged about 8 years and 6 years and one son aged 5 years were school going children and for their daughters education and for other purpose, the plaintiff decided to reside in her own newly constructed house which is situated at township of Bhagalpur. The plaintiff approached the defendants to vacate the suit premises but the defendants evaded the matter on some pretext or other. The plaintiff had no other alternative accommodation except the suit premises. She took a rented house at Mohalla Deepnagar, Mansurganj, P.S.-Adampur, District-Bhagalpur. Hence, the plaintiff requires the suit premises for her personal use and occupation for their residence therein as she is presently residing at a tenanted premise.
8. Further, the case of the plaintiff is that the partial eviction of the suit premises will not serve the requirement of the plaintiff. Hence, she requires the entire suit premises. The plaintiff and her husband on several times approached and requested the defendants after realizing her personal requirement. They assured the plaintiff and her husband that they will vacate the suit premises on or before 31.12.2005 but did not vacate the same and on 15.01.2006 they finally refused to vacate the suit premises. Hence, the necessity
Transferee landlord can evict for personal necessity without attornment; unproven tenant-prior agreement to sell does not end tenancy; revisional court examines only legality, not reappreciates facts....
The court affirmed that a landlord must prove bona fide personal necessity for eviction, and failure to assert partial eviction undermines the tenant's defense.
The main legal point established is the requirement for a genuine, honest, and bona fide need of the landlord for eviction, as well as the mandatory consideration of partial eviction under the Bihar ....
The landlord's assessment of personal necessity is paramount, and courts should not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
