IMPORTANT POINT
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. (24 words)

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek, learned counsel for the opposite 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 01.12.2023 passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Saran at Chapra, in Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2012 by which the suit was decreed upon finding that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant exists and that the plaintiffs have been able to prove the ground of personal necessity as pleaded.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the defendant-petitioner who was a tenant in the disputed premises having a small area of 1 dhur 12 dhurkis with a dimension of 9 ft 6 inch in width and 11 ft 6 inches in depth (in length) having a total area of 109.25 Sq. ft. at a rental of Rs. 800/- per month. The original owner was in dire need of money and as such, he sold the suit property to the plaintiffs through registered sale deed dated 17.10.2011 within the knowledge of defendant and the defendant- petitioner promised to vacate the shop immediately, however, he paid rent to the plaintiffs for the month of October and November, 2011. Thereafter, he failed to pay the rent and claimed the property on the basis of forged Mahadanama (Agreement to sell) for which Title Suit No. 51 of 2012 was filed by the defendant-petitioner for Specific Performance of Contract with false and fabricated averments. The plaintiffs-opposite parties have purchased the shop, in question, for personal necessity as their father was in need of the money for starting business of jewellery and as such plaintiffs filed the suit only on the ground of personal necessity.

4. On summon, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement. Apart from ornamental objection, the defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant. It is further pleaded that the father of the petitioner namely, Gulabchand Prasad was inducted as tenant in the disputed property on rent by its owner namely, Md. Salauddin in the year 1972 and he opened a shop in it. It is further contended that Md. Salauddin was in urgent need of money and he approached the defendant-petitioner for selling the disputed property to the petitioner and as the petitioner was in need of suit property, hence, he agreed to purchase the same from Md. Salauddin for the consideration amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The defendant-petitioner had made the payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- out of the agreed consideration amount on 01.09.2011 to Md. Salauddin and the rest amount i.e. a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was promised to be paid within one month for which Md. Salauddin agreed and executed Ekrarnama dated 01.09.2011 in presence of the witnesses and handed over the original documents to the petitioner. It was also agreed that after receiving the rest Rs. 75,000/- Md. Salauddin will execute the sale deed of the disputed property in favour of defendant-petitioner failing which the petitioner will have the right to deposit Rs. 75,000/- in Court and get the sale deed executed in favour of defendant