Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 90 (PAT)

Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa

2005-01-31

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is an intervenor in Eviction Suit No. 1/2001 whose intervention petition has been rejected by the learned Additional Munsif-II, Patna, by the impugned order on 26.7.2004. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner doggedly challenges the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that the plaintiffs are claiming title on the basis of the alleged sale-deeds executed by intervenors father which has been challenged in Title Suit No. 91/2001 by the intervenor and in that suit the plaintiff and the defendant of the instant Eviction suit have been impleaded as defendants. He further claimed that he has been looking after the properties and maintaining the tenancies since the life time of his father which would be apparent from the rent receipts and notices issued by his father to the tenants asking them to stop paying rent to his son, namely, the intervenor. He further claimed that two Eviction Suits had been filed, against the tenants in which his fathers petition u/s. 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) and had been rejected as prima facie he was not found to be the landlord . He also averred that the defendants have no document to prove the case of the tenancies and in their written statement filed in Title Suit No. 91/2001 they had stated that the intervenor-petitioner was collecting rent forcibly from certain tenants. Hence, according to him, there were sufficient material to show that the defendant was the tenant of the intervenor-petitioner who was also the owner of the suit property and it was incumbent on the learned Court below to implead him as party to the suit. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner produced two decisions, one reported in 2002 (1) SBR 277 and the other reported in AIR 1994 Cal 191 , Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Kumkum Mittal and Ors. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties submits that they had sufficient material to prove the relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties which had already been produced in the Court. Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Kumkum Mittal and Ors. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties submits that they had sufficient material to prove the relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties which had already been produced in the Court. He further submits that there was no occasion to implead the intervenor as party to the Eviction Suit as it will change the nature of the suit. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties produced two decisions of this Court in the case of Nagendra Pd. Singh and Anr. V/s. Mohammad Salim and Ors., reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 894 and in the case of Md. Sabir Hussain Siddique V/s. Md. Jiyaudding and Anr., reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 601. He further contended that after considering the prima facie case of land-lord and the tenant between the parties, the learned Court below had allowed the plaintiffs petition u/s. 15 of the Act which has been affirmed up to the Hon ble Supreme Court. He further contended that the intervenor-petitioner had also filed a petition before the learned District Judge for transfer of the Eviction Suit for analogous-hearing with Title Suit No. 91/2001, but the said plea was rejected by this Court as well as by Hon ble Supreme Court. 5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case whereas the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties are quite relevant, by which this Court has considered the matter in issue and has held that impleadment of a person claiming title is not permissible as it would change the nature of the suit from a suit for eviction to a suit for declaration of title. It is also apparent from the records and the statements of the parties that the defendant-opposite party has tried his best to create hindrance in the proceeding of the Eviction Suit but when he lost upto the Hon ble Apex Court, he propped up the intervenor-petitioner who also lost upto the Hon ble Apex Court and thereafter he filed a petition for intervention which in my view is absolutely frivolous and baseless. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants has been prima facie found by the learned Court below which has been upheld upto the Hon ble Supreme Court under the provision of sec. 15 of the Act. But the tenant did not comply the orders of any of the Courts as a result of which even his defence has been struck off. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the defendant is bent upon delaying the suit as long as he can so that his possession may continue. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order also, it is quite apparent that the learned Court below has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no occasion to add the intervenor-petitioner as party to the suit and hence I find no illegality and jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed and the learned Court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the Eviction Suit.