Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Birendra Pd. Verma, J.
Subhash Thawani —Petitioner
versus
Sri Rai Atul Krishna —Opp. Party
C.R. No. 339 of 2010
Decided on 29.6.2011
For the Petitioner:M/s. K.N. Choubey, Neeraj Kumar, Sidharth Harsh, Yogendra Kumar Dwivedi, Prabhat Kumar Munna, Ashok Kumar Garg, Sanjay Ojha. Advocates.
For the Opp. Party:M/s. Jashwir Singh Arora, Ajay Kumar, Ravi Bhatia, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of title on the basis of oral agreement and alleged payment of price and plea of acquiring title on the basis of adverse possession are self-contradictory and cannot be accepted.
Headnote:(i) Tenancy—Eviction—Rent—Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982— Sections 11 (1)(c) and 14(8)—Bona fide personal requirement of plaintiff—On consideration of all materials, trial court decreed suit and directed defendant to vacate suit premises—Possession of defendant-petitioner over suit premises is permissive possession and not on the basis of adverse possession—Even if defendant has been in continuous possession for more than 12 years, then in that case also it would not constitute adverse possession—On the ground of equity also petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference with impugned judgment and decree—No scope for interference with impugned judgment and decree. (Paras 7, 12, 13, 16 to 18)
(ii) Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 54—Registration Act, 1908—Section 17—Claim of title—If right, title and interest is transferred by a non-testamentary instrument with respect to immovable property of value of Rs.100 or upwards, then that has to be registered one—Petitioner claims to have acquired his right and title over suit premises by paying amount of Rs. 2,00,000, but neither mandate of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act nor mandate of Section 17 of Registration Act has been complied with—For sake of disputing relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant, such a plea was taken by defendant-tenant and has rightly been rejected by trial court. (Para 12)
Result: Civil revision application dismissed.
B.P. Verma, J.— The petitioner has filed the present civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short “the Act”), questioning the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2009 passed in Eviction Suit No.3 of 2005 by learned Execution Munsif, Patna decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiff opposite party herein for eviction on the ground of personal necessity in terms of Section 11(1)(c) of the Act.
2. Before coming to the factual backdrop of the present case, it would be relevant to mention here that originally against the instant impugned judgment dated 30.5.2009 passed in aforesaid Eviction Suit No.3 of 2005, C.R. No.1896 of 2009 was filed by one Krishna Bihari Ojha claiming himself to be the holder of power of attorney of present petitioner Subhash Thawani. In that Civil Revision No.1896 of 2009, Plaintiff Sri Rai Atul Krishna was impleaded as opposite party 1st Set and defendant Shri Subhash Thawani (the present petitioner) was impleaded as opposite party 2nd set. However, on the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party 1st set regarding maintainability of that civil revision application at the instance of a third person, namely, Krishna Bihari Ojha, aforesaid civil revision application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 17.2.2010 passed by a Bench of this Court with a liberty to file a fresh properly constituted civil revision application by the defendant judgment debtor—Subhash Thawani (the present petitioner).
3. In the light of aforesaid order dated 17.2.2010 passed in C.R. No.1896 of 2009, the present civil revision application was filed on 1.4.2010 by the present petitioner, who was admittedly defendant in the Eviction Suit No.3 of 2005. In view of the fact that present civil revision application was barred by limitation. I.A. No. 3611 of 2010 was filed on behalf of the petitioner for condonation of delay of 246 days in the background set forth above, and after hearing the parties, a Bench of this Court by an order dated 28.10.2010 has allowed the aforesaid interlocutory application and has condoned the delay by a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the matter was taken up and with the consent of the parties, was heard at length at the stage of admission itself for its final disposal.
4. The facts relevant for disposal of the present civil revision application are indicated, in brief, hereinafter. The plaintiff opposite party herein, claiming himself to be the landlord, brought Eviction Suit No.3 of 2005 in the Court of learned. (Munsif 3, Patna seeking a decree for eviction against sole defendant petitioner herein with respect to suit premises. The suit premise is entire first floor flat having an area of 800 sq. feet bearing holding No. 489 (old) corresponding to present holding No 1665/878 above shop Nos. 4 and 5. situate at Krishna Chowk, Station Road, P.S. Kotwali in the town and District of Patna, and has been detailed in schedule-1 of the plaint. It was claimed that defendant was inducted as the tenant on the oral lease which ultimately expired on the last day of March. 1992. Thereafter, on the request of the defendant, a fresh oral lease with possession was created w.e.f. 1.4.1992 till 31.3.1993, i.e. for 12 months at the monthly rental of Rs.2,100. After March, 1993, though lease was not been extended, but the defendant remained in occupation of the suit premises as the tenant.
5. It is the specific case of the plaintiff-opposite party herein that he has no other house of his own for living, and at present he is residing in a house inherited by his mother, situate at Patna City, which is far away from the offices of the plaintiff and his wife, where they are working, it has also been pleaded that two minor daughters and one son of the plaintiff are pursuing their studies in the schools situate at western part of Patna, which are far away from Patna City, but at a short dis
