Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 817 (JHR)

Chandan Tiwari v. Lalita Devi

2014-07-31

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
Order Heard the learned appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. A suit was filed by the respondent / plaintiff for eviction on the ground of default. The defendant appeared and filed W.S. making out a case that the defendant had been inducted over the entire building which was in two parts northern as well as southern. While the defendant was in occupation, northern portion of the building was sold to the defendant, whereas the defendant remained as tenant in southern portion of the building. In course of time, the plaintiff executed a deed for agreement to sale and since then the appellant was residing in southern portion not in the capacity of tenant but in the capacity of prospective owner and thereby the question of making payment of rental does not arise. Both the courts, the trial court as well as the appellate court did not consider this aspect of the matter in right perspective and hence both the courts committed illegality in passing decree of eviction. 3. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant from the date of execution of the deed of agreement to sell, was occupying the suit premises not as a tenant and thereby any finding given by the courts that there had been relationship of the landlord and the tenant in between the parties is bad. 4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that whatever plea is being taken on behalf of the appellant is based under old provision of Section 53 of the T.P. Act which got amended from 24.9.2001 and under the amended provision of the T.P. Act, no one could derive any interest over the properties on the basis of unregistered document of agreement to sell and thereby both the courts below are absolutely justified in holding that there has been relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that the trial court as well as the appellate court are justified under the fact and circumstances stated above in holding that there has been relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parities. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that the trial court as well as the appellate court are justified under the fact and circumstances stated above in holding that there has been relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parities. Moreover, no substantial question of law seems to have been involved in this do find that the trial court as well as the appellate court are justified under the fact and circumstances stated above in holding that there has been relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. Moreover, no substantial question of law seems to have been involved in this case.