A sale deed executed by a natural guardian on behalf of a minor without legal necessity or without taking leave of court is not void ob initio but merely a voidable one which can be avoided by the minors after attaining majority by filing a suit within 3 years.

1. THIS revisional application is at the instance of a tenant/defendant in a suit for "eviction and is directed against Order No. 55 dated December 23, 1997 passed by the learned trial Judge thereby disposing of an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act along with an issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord" and tenant between the parties. By order impunged, the learned Trial Judge has held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the peritioner is a defaulter in payment of rent

2. THE present opposite party claiming to be a transferee landlord filed the aforesaid suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 95 of. 1995 on the grounds of default in payment of rent, causing damage, sub-letting and reasonable requirement.

The case made out by the opposite party was that one Onkarnath 2. was the previous owner and landlord of the present petitioner, who died leaving his niece Aparna and nephew Asharam as the sole heirs. The petitioner purchased the suit property initially from Apama by way of a sale deed dated January 7. 1991. According to Aparna, Asharam died bachelor and as such on the death of Asharam. she had inheritted the 8 annas share of Asharam in the suit property and thus became absolute owner. Subsequently, the opposite party came to know that Asharam died leaving his widow Mayarani and three children. Although Aparna did not recognise Mayarani as the widow of Asharam, the opposite party for abundant precaution also purchased the share of Asharam's heirs through mayarani by virtue of a sale deed dated February 21, 1992. By the said sale deed Mayarani far herself and as natural guardian to her three children sold away the entire interest of Asharam for alleged legal necessity. Subsequently, two of the aforesaid three children viz. Siddhartha and Indranil executed a Nabadi deed dated February 2, 1995 which was registered on May 12. 1995 thereby endorsing the sale of their mother.

3. AFTER entering appearance in the suit the present petitioner filed an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act thereby disputing the relationship of landlord an tenant between the parties and according to the petitioner Onkarnath executed a registered will bequeathing the suit proprty to Asharam by excluding Aparna. According to the petitioner by sale deed from Aparna, the opposite party no. 1 acquired no interest of the property. As regards the sale deed executed by Mayarani the case of the petitioner is that by virtue of the said deed only Mayarani's 1/4th share can be conveyed in favour of the opposite party inasmuch as subsequently on attaining majority Siddhartha and Indranil bad sold away their interest in the property in favour of one Seem Bhaskar. the daughter of the petitioner. The further case made out by the petitioner is that subsequently the other child viz. Jayasree on attaining majority sold away her 1/4th share in the property in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed which has been registered on january 13. 1998 after the passing of the order impugned in this application.

4. THEREFORE, according to the petitioner, her daughter had obtained 8 annas share in the property and he himself has purchased 4 annas shane in the property. The fore, the suit filed by the opposite party having 4 annas share was not maintainable. 4.

The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record held that the opposite party became absolute owner of the property by virtue of his sale deeds from Aparna and Mayarani and subsequent Nabadi deed from two children of Mayarani and therefore was entitled to maintain the suit for eviction.

5. BEING dissatisfied, the tenant has come up in revision.

6. MR. Das, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant has firstly contended that in view of the registered will executed by onkarnath bequeathing the property in favour of Asharam, Aparna cannot have any