The existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is established by unchallenged ownership, while denial of title by a tenant does not negate eviction rights against unproven claims.

ORDER :

KHATIM REZA, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants– respondents–appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court of Appeal below.

2. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2007, filed by the plaintiff–appellant–respondent for eviction of the appellants on the grounds of bona fide personal necessity and default in payment of rent.The original defendant, namely Sripal Sharma (now deceased and duly substituted by his heirs during the pendency of the suit), contested the claim by denying the title of the plaintiff and further disputed the suit on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and therefore, the question of default in payment of rent does not arise.

3. The Eviction Suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)–cum–Munsif, Dehri- On-Sone, Rohtas, vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2020 passed in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2007, which was thereafter challenged by the plaintiff by preferring Eviction Appeal No. 01 of 2021. Upon hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, vide judgment and decree dated 05.01.2024 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 01 of 2021, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court of Appeal below, the defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit premises belonged to and were owned by Shri Paresh Nath Sen, Ashok Kumar Sen, Kedar Nath Sen, and other co-sharers of the Sen family. The plot in question is recorded as C.S. Plot No. 337 under C.S. Khata No. 26, corresponding to Municipal Survey Plot No. 19, Municipal Khata No. 404, as described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff acquired the suit premises, along with other plots of land, from Paresh Nath Sen and other co-sharers by virtue of two registered sale deeds; one executed and registered on 02.09.2002 and the another on 14.09.2002. Subsequently, the plaintiff came into possession of the purchased land, including the suit premises as the owner and title holder of the same since the date of purchase. It is further pleaded that the vendors of the plaintiff had constructed a room, covered by a shed over the land of the suit premises. The original defendant, namely Sripal Sharma, father of the appellants, was inducted as a tenant by Paresh Nath Sen and others on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-. The original defendant used to pay rent to the vendors of the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of an oral agreement.

6. It was further agreed that the original defendant would vacate the suit premises in the event of default in payment of rent for a period of two consecutive months. It was also agreed that the defendant would vacate the suit premises whenever the owner required the same for personal necessity. The defendant has been occupying the suit premises and carrying on the business of welding as a tenant. After the purchase of the suit premises, Paresh Nath Sen and others informed the defendant that the premises had been sold to the plaintiff, in presence of witnesses, and directed the defendant to pay rent to the plaintiff thereafter. It is also pleaded that the suit premises have been managed and looked after by the plaintiff through her father-in-law, Shri Ambika Prasad