A mere agreement to sell does not confer title or ownership rights, nor does it extinguish an existing landlord-tenant relationship. A purchaser of property via a registered sale deed becomes the rightful landlord entitled to seek eviction for bona fide personal necessity.

Order :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Opp. party.

2. The instant Civil Revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2014 (decree singed on 23.12.2014) passed in Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2010 by Learned Sr. Civil Judge-IV, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff/opp. party on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has been allowed.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff/opp. party has instituted an Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2010 against the defendants/petitioners, before the court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Hazaribag, seeking decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation, under the provision of Section 11(1)(c) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. It is alleged that the suit premises was originally belonged to one Mahabir Ram, which was let out by him to father of the defendants namely Rameshwar Lal Sharma, on month-to-month tenancy basis. After death of Mahabir Ram, his son namely Gopal Prasad became the landlord, while the said Rameshwar Lal Sharma continued as tenant in the suit premises. Subsequently, Rameshwar Lal Sharma also died leaving behind his four sons namely Jai Prakash Sharma, Om Prakash Sharma, Ved Prakash Sharma and Satya Narayan Sharma. In the meantime, a family partition took place amongst heirs of Mahabir Ram on 06.11.2001 and the suit property was allotted in the share of Gopal Prasad and Chandrawati Prasad (wife of his elder brother Ganesh Prasad). Accordingly, Gopal Prasad continued to be the landlord of the premises and received rent from defendant No. 1 Jai Prakash Sharma who was Karta of the joint family, after death of his father Rameshwar Lal Sharma. It is further alleged that the old structure standing on the suit premises fell down due to deteriorate condition except one room under the physical possession of defendant No. 1. While the brothers of the defendants shifted to other houses. It is further submitted that upon death of Gopal Prasad, his sons Santosh Kumar Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Subodh Kumar Gupta and Chandrawati Prasad became the joint owner of the suit property, who by virtue of registered sale deed No. 5009 dated 22.04.2010, sold the suit property to the plaintiff. After purchase of the suit properties, the plaintiff mutated her name in the records of municipal Hazaribag vide mutation case No. 32/2010-11 dated 10.06.2010. It is further alleged that after purchase of the suit premises, the plaintiff issued registered notices dated 15.06.2010 and 25.06.2010, respectively, informing the defendant No. 1 about the said purchase and also requested the payment of arrears of rent as well as to vacate the suit premises. The defendant No. 1 did not reply to the notices nor vacated the suit premises and even paid the rent. Therefore, this suit was instituted to get the vacant possession of the suit premises for her bona fide personal use and occupation.

Upon service of notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement with a leave to contest the suit which was rejected but the said order was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 13.03.2012 by way of Civil Revision. As such, the written statement of the defendants was taken on record.

The defendants have denied any relationship of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff along with her right, title and inter