IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 254 of 2018

1. Rajesh Kumar Jain, aged about 47 years

2. Mukesh jain, aged about 54 years 3. Shailesh jain, aged about 44 years

4. Manoj jain, aged about 41 years All sons of Late Bijay Kumar Jain.

All residents of Station Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.- Jugsalai, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.

… … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus Smt. Kanta Jain, W/o Sri Manik Chand Jain Resident of Kutchari Mohalla, Station Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-

Jugsalai, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.

… … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent ---

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

For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate : Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate ---

10/17.01.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2018 (Decree sealed and signed on 25.05.2018) passed by learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2014 whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2014 (Decree sealed and signed on 25.04.2014) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I in Eviction Suit No.

9 of 2010 has been affirmed.

3. This second appeal has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 01.02.2019 and following substantial question of has been framed:

"Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below stands vitiated for not taking into account the pleadings of the parties which clearly established that during the subsistence of the tenancy, the plaintiff/ landlord had executed an Agreement to Sale dated 22.02.2006 in favour of tenant/ defendant and as such, since then the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased. Hence, the suit for eviction of tenant, itself is not maintainable?"

4. Later on, another substantial question of law was framed vide order dated 09^th January 2025 which is as follows:

"Whether the evidence led by the general power of attorney holder dated 12.03.2013 (Exhibit-2) (marked with objection), after institution of suit could have been looked into by both the courts below for the incidence/facts happened prior to institution of the suit?"

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that it is not in dispute that the father of the defendants in the present suit was tenant in the suit premises and during the subsistence of tenancy, an agreement of sale was entered into in the year 2006 and the appellants who were the defendants in the suit continued in possession of the suit premises. He has also submitted that in view of the aforesaid agreement of sale, the suit for eviction under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "BBC Act") was itself not maintainable. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased from the date of execution of the agreement of sale in the year 2006 and the defendants along with their father, continued to remain in possession of the suit property as part performance of the agreement of sale.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1411 (Joseph Kantharaj and Anr. Vs. Attharunnisa Begum S) and has referred to paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof to submit that the facts of the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. It is submitted that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the trial Court was justified in its decision to defer the eviction proceeding till the decision by the Civil Court in the suit for specific performance of contract.

7. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that in the present ca