A tenant is legally estopped from challenging the title or the right of their landlord to lease a property, and issues regarding the legality of sub-letting against a head-lessor’s terms cannot be used by the tenant to deny the landlord-tenant relationship in eviction proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.02.2018 (decree signed on 24.02.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VI, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 76 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiffs /Opposite Parties has been decreed and defendants / petitioners have been directed to hand over vacant possession of the shop premises to the opposite parties within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiffs / opposite parties are at liberty to evict the defendants / petitioners through process of the Court.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiffs / opposite parties have instituted a suit for eviction under Section 11 (i)(C) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act in the court of learned Munsif at Jamshedpur, being Eviction Suit No. 76 of 1993, praying therein for the following reliefs:-

(i) A decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises described in the Schedule to the plaint evicting the defendants therefrom;

(ii) A decree for cost of the suit; and

(iii) A decree for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled under the law and equity.

4. According to the case of plaintiffs the suit land i.e. Shop was given on rent of Rs. 100/- as a monthly rent by the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 namely, Upendra Mohan Dutta to the defendant /petitioner and after death of Upendra Mohan Dutta, the plaintiffs inherited the shop premises and since plaintiff no. 2 is unemployed, as such, the premises was bonafide required for business for their livelihood. It is further alleged that notice through Advocate was sent to defendants for handing over the possession of the shop on 04.11.1992, but the defendant / petitioner failed to do so, hence, the suit has been preferred.

5. The defendants / petitioners on being noticed appeared and filed their written statement on 26.02.1994, stating, inter alia that the plaintiffs have no cause of action or right to sue against defendants. The suit is not maintainable in its present form for the reliefs as claimed by the plaintiffs. The suit is barred for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The suit does not come within the purview of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed.

6. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties has settled following issues for adjudication:-

(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is maintainable on facts and law?

(ii) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants?

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are owner of the suit shop?

(iv) Whether the suit is under-valued and this Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit?

(v) Are the plaintiffs required suit premises for their reasonable and bonafide use and occupation in connection with business and entitled to evict the defendants from the suit shop?

(vi) Whether the partial eviction from the suit shop will fulfill the necessity of the plaintiffs?

(vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to evict the defendants on the basis of better ownership to the suit property?

(ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other reliefs?

7. In support of respective case, both parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The learne