Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Bimal Rajak, S/o Late Mahabir Rajak - Appellant
Versus
Parmila Devi, W/o Rajendra Prasad Sahu - Respondents
S.A. No. 202 of 2017
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. N. Sahay, Senior Advocate:Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate:Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
In eviction proceedings, even when the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, courts may consider title matters incidentally to ascertain tenant rights under the Rent Control Act.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act - Sections 106 and 107 - Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act - Eviction of tenants - Where the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, courts may examine the title incidentally to establish tenancy - Unilateral kirayanama was deemed insufficient in establishing tenancy as it lacked required signatures and registration. (Paras 5, 18, 36)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court holds jurisdiction to consider title matters in eviction suits under Rent Control Act despite disputes, as a preliminary question of landlord-tenant relationship is crucial. (Paras 46, 49)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged eviction orders based on a disputed kirayanama from 1984 and claimed lack of landlord-tenant relationship, while the plaintiffs sought eviction for non-payment of rent, asserting rightful ownership and tenant default. (Paras 2, 10, 20)
Findings of Court:
Both courts established the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, emphasizing the kirayanama's evidentiary value and the tenant's admitted prior rent payments until the year 1999, leading to default. (Paras 36, 40)
Issues: The main issues include whether the defendant can be evicted without admitting a landlord-tenant relationship and if the plaintiffs must prove their title through a regular suit. (Paras 43, 44)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that despite disputes, title and ownership assessments are necessary for establishing tenancy jurisdiction. The absence of a proper landlord-tenant agreement does not negate judicial review in eviction matters under rent statutes. (Paras 48, 49)
Result: Appeal dismissed; tenancy relationship upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.02.2017 and decree dated 21.02.2017 passed in Eviction Title Appeal No.6 of 2014 by the learned District Judge-II, Ramgarh affirming the judgment dated 13.05.2014 (decree dated 21.05.2014) passed in Eviction Suit No.14 of 2008 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hazaribagh. The suit seeking eviction of the defendant was decreed and the learned 1st appellate court has affirmed the judgment. Consequently, the defendant (the alleged tenant), is under appeal before this Court.
2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 29.07.2021 by referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90 ( Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad and Another ), and the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration :
(i) Whether in a summary proceeding where the relationship of landlord and tenant is not admitted, the defendant/appellant/appellant can be evicted from a suit property?
(ii) Whether plaintiffs have to file suit for right, title, interest and recovery of possession before the appropriate forum?
Arguments of the appellant
3. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant, while assailing the judgments passed by both the learned courts, has submitted that the core issue involved in this case is as to whether there was landlord- tenant relationship in view of the Kirayanama which was exhibited as Exhibit-1. He submits that the alleged Kirayanama is dated 19.09.1984, which is unilaterally executed by the father of the defendant (whose signature was disputed) stating that he would pay Rs. 60/- per month as rent. He submits that the Kirayanama neither contains the details of the property which is given in tenancy nor it was signed by the plaintiffs nor any period of tenancy has been mentioned therein, nor the Kirayanama has been duly registered.
4. He submits that ex-facie the Kirayanama could not be said to be an agreement of tenancy and therefore, no reliance could have been placed by the learned courts on Kirayanama (Exhibit-1).
5. It is submitted that the Exhibit-1 was allegedly signed by Mahavir Rajak – the father of the defendant, but the defendant had disputed the signature of Mahavir Rajak over the Kirayanama but the plaintiffs did not take any steps to get the signature duly verified from any expert. He has also submitted that as per the Kirayanama, there were three witnesses and one of the three witnesses has been examined as P.W. 3. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has stated that Kirayanama was also signed by plaintiff no.1, but admittedly, Exhibit- 1 does not contain the signature. He submits that this demolishes the veracity of the evidence of P.W. 3 but the learned courts have failed to consider this aspect of the matter and thus the findings of the learned courts are perverse. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the Kirayanama has not been duly proved and hence there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
6. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant has further referred to Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and submitted that the Kirayanama was required to be signed by both the parties and in absence of signature of plaintiff no.1, the unilateral act of the father of the defendant could not be taken into consideration and this submission is without prejudice to the submission that the signature was not the signature of the father of the defendant on the alleged Kirayanama (exhibit-1).
7. The learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1974 SCC OnLine Patna 37 ( Garaj Narain Singh Vs. Babulal Khemka ) and referred to paragraph 11 thereof to submit that in the said case, there was a unilateral deed of lease which was exhibit-5 and it was held to be invalid and it was held that the deed being a registered document, it was imperative for both the parties to have
