IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 190 of 2003

1. Suresh Thakur (Died and substituted vide order dated

17.07.2025)

1.i Sumitra Devi, Widow of Late Suresh Thakur.

1.ii Rakhi Kumari, Daughter of Late Suresh Thakur

1.iii Gudiya Kumari, Daughter of Late Suresh Thakur.

All resident of Mohalla Ramnagar, P.O. Boddom Bazar, P.S.

Sadar, District-Hazaribag.

2. Naresh Thakur

3. Sunil Kumar Thakur 4. Anil Kumar Thakur

5. Puspha Kumari (Devi), Daughter of Late Goberdhan Thakur 6. Pratima Kumari (Devi), Daughter of Late Goberdhan Thakur

7. Anima Kumari (Devi) (Substituted vide order dated 15.02.2022)

7.i Atul Kumar, S/O: Sheo Sharan Thakur, Resident of Mohalla Kani Bazar, P.O. Boddom Bazar, P.S. Sadar Town and District-

Hazaribagh

8. Sunita Kumari (Devi), Daughter of Late Goberdhan Thakur All residents of Village-Kadma, P.O. Baddam Bazar, P.S.

Katkamsandi, District: Hazaribag.

… … Defendants/Respondents/Appellants Versus

1. Kusum Lata Devi, Wife of Sri Bijay Kumar Agarwal

2. Smt. Uma Devi, Wife of Sri Shanti Kumar Agarwal Both resident of Bara Bazar Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and District-

Hazaribag … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate ---

Lastly heard on 11.09.2025.

26/18.09.2025

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment 04.03.2003 (decree signed on 25.03.2003) passed by 6^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 01 of 1992 whereby the judgment dated 29.02.1992 (decree signed on 10.03.1992) passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Eviction Title Suit No. 25 of 1984 / 04 of 1985 has been set aside.

2. The suit for eviction was on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity was dismissed by the learned trial court and the appeal was allowed by the learned 1^st appellate court and consequently the defendant is the appellant before this court.

3. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:-

a) That after adjudication, a decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for eviction of the defendant from the tenanted suit premises described in the schedule-‘A’ to the plaint and the plaintiffs be put in khas possession of the same through the process of the court. That a decree for Rs.350.00 being the arrears of rent due and for future rent @Rs.75.00 per month till khas possession is not delivered by passed.

b) That a decree for cost of the suit.

c) That any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled to.

4. This case was admitted for final hearing vide order dated

18.07.2006 on the following substantial questions of law:-

I. Whether in case of the appellants’ possession as a prospective purchaser by virtue of the agreement for sale, the defendants-appellants can be said to be the tenant under the plaintiffs-respondents?

II. Whether the nature of possession of the appellants having changed as prospective purchaser in part performance of contract for sale, relationship of landlord and tenant survived between the parties?

Case of the plaintiffs

5. As per the case of the plaintiffs a double storied house which consisted of two parts was originally owned and possessed by Prafulla Chandra Mitra who inducted the defendant in the southern portion of the ground floor in one portion of the holding as month to month tenant. The area put under tenancy has been described in Schedule ‘A’

of the plaint.

6. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the defendant paid rent to Prafulla Chandra Mitra who granted rent receipts to the defendant. Prafulla Chandra Mitra died in the month of January, 1975 leaving behind son namely Deepak Mitra, two daughters namely Chandra Basu and Smt. Ratna Bhadra and his widow namely Smt. Ira Mitra who jointly inherited the properties.

7. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant started to pay monthly rent to Deepak Mitra against grant rent receipts and the defendant paid