Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 356 (PAT)

Gaur Chandra Sen v. Yamuna Prasad

1997-05-01

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body1997
JUDGMENT S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This civil revision application has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1995 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Godda in Title Eviction Suit No. 1/91. The decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party on the ground of personal necessity and expiry of terms of tenancy since 31.12.1990. 2. The Title Eviction Suit No. 1/91 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner. The plaintiff opposite party claimed that he is recorded tenant of Jamabandi no. 10 of plot no. 533 of village-Jamua having obtained the same by settlement from the Bhudan Committee, Deoghar, confirmed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Godda. Thereafter the plaintiff constructed the suit premises and subsequently inducted the defendant-petitioner as tenant. According to him, an agreement was executed by the parties that the defendant will pay rent of Rs. 300/- per month to the plaintiff and the lease will continue for the period from 1.3.1988 to 31.12.1990. It was claimed that the lease period expired on 31.12.1990. The plaintiff claimed personal necessity of the entire premises for starting an agency of chemical manufacture and alleged that in spite of notices given to defendant-petitioner, he having not vacated the same, the plaintiff had to file the aforesaid eviction suit. 3. The defendant-petitioner appeared in the said suit and sought leave to contest the suit. According to the defendant, he is the owner of the suit premises having right and title over the same. It was claimed that the defendant purchased the suit premises on 22.1.1937 from the recorded tenant and since then accrued right and title over the suit premises. The defendant further claimed adverse possession. He also disputed the title of the plaintiff on the ground that the settlement made by the Bhudan Committee in favour of the plaintiff was invalid having passed without following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of Bhoodan Yagna Act. Further, according to the defendant, the suit premises having been purchased by him on 22.1.1937 from the recorded tenant, the sons of said recorded tenant had no jurisdiction to donate the land in favour of Bhoodan Committee in the year 1969 and thereby settlement in favour of' the plaintiff-opposite party was void. Further, according to the defendant, the suit premises having been purchased by him on 22.1.1937 from the recorded tenant, the sons of said recorded tenant had no jurisdiction to donate the land in favour of Bhoodan Committee in the year 1969 and thereby settlement in favour of' the plaintiff-opposite party was void. According to the defendant, as the matter relates to disputed question of title, the suit for eviction in terms with Section 11 (1)(c) & (e) of the B.B.C. Act was not maintainable. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that there being a disputed question of title, the court below should have returned the plaint to the plaintiff- opposite party to file appropriate court. He relied on a decision of this court reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 541 . The counsel for the defendant petitioner also relied on unreported Division Bench decision in Civil Revision No. 1694 of 1991, disposed of on 20.9.1995, by which a Division Bench of this court affirmed the decision given by the learned single Judge of this court reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 541 . Counsel for the defendant-petitioner further challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and submitted that the Kurfanama was a forged document. According to him, there was no personal necessity of the plaintiff and the court below failed to decide the matter relating to partial eviction, which was mandatory. 4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party, while supported his claim on the basis of settlement made in his favour by the Bhoodan Committee submitted that there was no specific challenge that was made by the defendant relating to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The court below after taking into note the oral and documentary evidences came to a definite conclusion that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Admittedly, Jaldhar Mahto and others were the recorded tenant. The defendant-petitioner claimed that the suit premises was purchased by them on 22.1.1937. The court below took into note that D.W. 6 Nandu Mahto was one of the witness of the sale deed (Ext. 8) and D.W. 7 Ramcharitra Mahto was the another witness of the said document. They proved that the sale deed (Ext. B) was dated 21.1.1938, which was found to be correct by the court below. The court below took into note that D.W. 6 Nandu Mahto was one of the witness of the sale deed (Ext. 8) and D.W. 7 Ramcharitra Mahto was the another witness of the said document. They proved that the sale deed (Ext. B) was dated 21.1.1938, which was found to be correct by the court below. The court below thereby held that there was a major contradiction in the pleading and evidence of the defendant. I further find that the court below properly discussed the claim of the defendant relating to adverse possession and came to a definite finding that the sale deed (Ext. B) being of 21.1.1938, till 1.11.1949, the defendant having not completed 12 years of possession cannot derive benefit of adverse possession, where-in-after in terms with Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, the said transfer becomes invalid. So far as the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party relating to right and title is concerned, the same is based on the settlement made by the Bhoodan Committee which was confirmed by the competent authority. The defendant has challenged the validity of the said settlement. According to me, the validity of the settlement could not have been gone into by the court below in a suit for eviction. The court is to find out title of the part incidentally as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and. tenant between the parties or not. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the plaintiff-opposite party executed a Kurfanama on 1.9.1988 (Ext. 6), photo copy of which was fed before the court below, the original having lost for which one F.I.R. was lodged by the plaintiff on 9.4.1992 (Ext. 1). D.W. 11 proved the said Ext. 6, which shows that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the defendant agreed to pay rent of Rs. 300/- per month in favour of the plaintiff for the said suit premises. Said Ext. 6 further shows that the tenancy was for the period from 1.3.1988 to 31.12.1990. I n the above circumstances, the learned court held that the plaintiff was also entitled for eviction of defendant in terms with Section 10(1)(e) of the B.B.C. Act. 300/- per month in favour of the plaintiff for the said suit premises. Said Ext. 6 further shows that the tenancy was for the period from 1.3.1988 to 31.12.1990. I n the above circumstances, the learned court held that the plaintiff was also entitled for eviction of defendant in terms with Section 10(1)(e) of the B.B.C. Act. So far as validity of the said Kurfanama is concerned, it will be evident from the para-19 of the impugned judgment that the suggestion was only made by the defendant that the said Ext. was forged but no specific pleading was made nor any evidence was led to that effect. So far personal necessity is concerned, no specific pleading has been made by the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiff-opposite party had no personal necessity. The court below has taken into note that the plaintiff-opposite party sought for eviction from entire premises to start business and to open an agency of a chemical manufacturer. So far as partial eviction is concerned, according to me, even if such decision has not been given by the court below, defendant cannot derive any benefit as the lease expired on 31.12.1990 and in terms with Section 11 (1)(e) of the B.B.C. Act, the plaintiff was entitled to evict the defendant after the said date. 6. I find no error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly the civil revision application is dismissed.