Back
2007 Supreme(Jhk) 166
Jharkhand High Court
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
Tilak Raj Tandon, Jogindra Singh And J.P.Mukherjee - Appellant
Versus
Basudha Coke (India) Pvt.Ltd. - Respondent
SA 12 Of 2007, SA 13 Of 2007, SA 14 Of 2007
Decided On : 13 March, 2007
Headnote:Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 – Sections 2(f) and 11(1)(c) – Owner who files the suit for eviction on ground of personal necessity must plead in the plaint that he is owner – decree for eviction can not be passed in favour of an agreement holder – appellant allowed. (Paras 16, 19, 22 to 24, 26)
Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) The Supreme Court's interpretation that a landlord must be the owner with a right to occupy against the whole world to seek eviction on personal necessity; a mere rent collector cannot invoke Section 11(1)(c). - (!) The decision in M.M. Quasim is not applicable where the plaintiff was merely an agreement-holder at the time of suit; an agreement to sale does not confer ownership rights. - (!) (!) The owner must plead in the plaint that he is the owner and requires the premises for bonafide personal necessity; Explanation I narrows landlord to the owner for personal-necessity eviction. - (!) (!) The crucial date to determine requirement is the date of the suit; however, subsequent developments do not automatically negate the need if bona fide. - (!) Proviso to Section 11(1)(c) requires the court to consider whether partial eviction could satisfy the landlord’s bona fide need; the court must decide on partial eviction where appropriate. - (!) The ratio in M.M. Quasim cannot be applied to the facts here due to the statutory explanation limiting who can seek personal-necessity eviction. - (!) (!) (!) Section 2(f) defines landlord broadly to include those who receive rent on behalf of another, but personal-necessity eviction is restricted to the owner with a right to occupy.
What is the standard to grant eviction on the ground of personal necessity when the plaintiff holds an agreement to sale or is not the owner on the date of suit?
What is the effect of a plaintiff’s ownership status at the date of decree on a claim for eviction on personal necessity under the Bihar Building Act?
What constitutes bona fide personal necessity and how should courts treat partial eviction under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Act?
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In these appeals, since common questions of law and facts are involved and common substantial questions of law were formulated, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By order dated 7.2.2007, these appeals were admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law and liberty was also given to formulate other substantial question of law at the time of hearing of the appeals.
(1) Whether a decree for eviction on the ground of personal necessity can be sustained in law in favour of a person who instituted the suit for his personal necessity on the basis of an agreement to sale?
(2) Whether having regard to the fact that the suit teas instituted by the plaintiff on 12.5.2000 and a sale deed was executed in his favour by the original owner on 6.7.2004, a decree for eviction on the ground of personal necessity can be passed in his favour?
3. In course of hearing, the following substantial question of law has also been formulated to be decided in these appeals.
i) Whether the findings recorded by both the Courts below on the issue of personal necessity are perverse in law?
4. The plaintiff-respondent namely, Basudha Coke (India) Pvt Ltd, instituted three suits being Title Eviction Suit Nos. 19 of 2000, 22 of 2000 and 23 of 2000 against the appellants for decree of eviction in respect of the suit premises described in the schedules of the plaints. The plaintiff-respondents case in the plaint is that the plaintiff-firm is the owner of the suit premises and the defendants-appellants were inducted as tenants by the outcome owner Shri Kamal Chandrakant Singhvi. Said Kamal Chandrakant Singhvi transferred the suit premises to the plaintiff and informed about the said transfer to the defendants and they were directed to pay rent to the plaintiff from November, 1990. It was alleged that the defendants failed to pay rent of the suit premises and made themselves defaulter and consequently liable to be evicted. The plaintiff- respondent also alleged that the suit premises are required by the plaintiff for their personal necessity as the plaintiff is a business firm and is facing acute shortage of accommodation for the purpose of office as well as staffs for residence purposes.
5. The defendants-appellants contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants admitted that they are in occupation of the premises as tenant, but they have regularly paid rent and they are not defaulter. It was further alleged that out of 12 flats in the building 5 flats were vacant at the time of institution of the suit. One flat was vacated by Dinkar Bhai and plaintiff got possession of it, but out of six flats, the plaintiff sold three flats. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, decreed the suit on the ground of personal necessity but decided the issue of default against the plaintiff- respondent.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants-tenants filed appeals being Title Appeal Nos. 140, 141 and 142 of 2005 in the Court of District judge, Dhanbad. The appellate Court framed the following points for determination:
1) Whether the plaintiff-respondents have any right to file the suit and whether there was any cause of action or not?
2) Whether the plaintiff-respondent requires the suit premises of the suits in bona fide and in good faith?
7. While deciding point No. (1), the appellate Court took notice of the fact that the suits were filed on 12.5.2000, but on that date, the suit properties were not transferred in favour of the plaintiff. The original owner executed a sale deed during pendency of the suit on 6.7.2004. After discussing the evidence, the appellate Court held that although there was no transfer of the suit properties when the suit was instituted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff became owner of the suit property on the date the decree was passed by the trial court. As against Point No. (2), the Court of Appeal below affirmed the finding o
