Judgment:
ORDER
N.N. Tiwari, J.
1. This civil revision is against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2004 passed by learned Sub-Judge IV, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 34 of 1991/2 of 2004 whereby learned Sub-Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs opposite-parties and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises.
2. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite-parties on the ground of personal necessity. The petitioner's case is that the suit premises formerly belonged to one Kamta Prasad Bhagat of Barakar, District Burdwan (West Bengal). The defendant was inducted as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The said Kamta Prasad Bhagat executed an agreement to sell dated 10.8.1987, but he failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed a suit seeking decree of the specific performance of contract being Title Suit No. 24 of 1988. The said suit was contested by Kamta Prasad, who took the plea that the agreement to sell was made in favour of some other persons including the present petitioner. The said persons were impleaded in the suit. Subsequently, said Kamta Prasad executed a registered sale-deed and transferred the right, title and possession over the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of two sale-deeds dated 9.1.1991. The further case of the plaintiffs is that they have been facing acute shortage of accommodation and they were living jointly with their father, mother and sister. The plaintiff No. 1 has three children who are sitting idle and the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are also desirous to run a business of grocery shop. The plaintiffs, thus require the suit premises for their use and occupation and as such they requested the defendant, but he did not vacate the suit premises, which gave rise to the said suit.
3. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. The defendant, inter alia, denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He stated that one Jagdish Sao, defendant's uncle was inducted as tenant in the year 1950 and the defendant has been living in the said premises since his childhood. It was stated that said Kamta Prasad Bhagat agreed to sell the tenanted house to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and had executed a deed of agreement for sale dated 18.2.1988 in his favour. The defendant had also paid Rs. 5000/- in advance and balance of Rs. 13,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of sale-deed, but the said Kamta Prasad Bhagat did not execute the sale-deed inspite of several notices served through his lawyer. The defendant denied the said purchase claimed by the plaintiffs and alleged that the same were illegal collusive and without any consideration. The defendant pleaded that the suit was filed in collusion with the said Kamta Prasad.
4. On the basis of the said pleadings several issues were framed by the trial Court. The parties led their evidences. The trial Court, on thorough discussion and consideration of the facts, evidences and materials on record, came to the finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the plaintiffs require the suit premises reasonably for their own use and occupation. The trial Court decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit.
5. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tried to assail the judgment and decree on the ground that the Court below has acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that the controversy between the parties raised serious question of title and the trial Court was not competent to decide the title in a summary suit under Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the defendant disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and has also claimed to be in possession of the suit property by virtue of the agreement for sale in their favour and in that view, the issue between the parties were regarding their respective title and it was not a case to be decided in the said summary suit. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Patna High Court in Md. Kamruddin v. Brijnandan Prasad @ Moti and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 49 and submitted that the matter requires a fresh look and the suit, if though proper may be directed to be transformed into a regular suit on payment of ad-valorem Court fee, so that the controversy between the parties can be finally set at rest.
6. Mr. Rajesh Lala, on the other hand submitted that the Court below has thoroughly examined the claim made by the defendant on the basis of the evidences and materials on record and has come to the finding that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the plaintiffs require the suit premises bona fide and in good faith for their own use and occupation. Learned Counsel submitted that merely by raising a question relating to title or denial of relationship of landlord and tenant itself does not convert an eviction suit into a regular title suit. There must be some foundational facts in the pleadings in support of the claim of the title. In the instant case the defence of the defendant is that he had entered into an agreement with the landlord for purchasing the suit premises. The defendant, thus, admitted the said Kamta Prasad Bhagat as a landlord from which the plaintiff-opposite-parties have purchased the property by virtue of a sale-deed. Merely by entering into an agreement, a person does not acquire any title to the property. A claim of title on the said basis has no legal foundation and as such there was no dispute of title at all in the Court below and that the Court below has properly exercised its jurisdiction and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that they purchased the said property from the erstwhile owner Kamta Prasad Bhagat. The defendant has admitted that he was a tenant under Kamta Prasad Bhagat. He only claimed to have entered in an agreement to purchase the property, but the fact remains that he has not purchased the suit premises, whereas the plaintiffs have acquired the suit premises by virtue of a registered sale-deed. The sale-deed has not been assailed in any Court of competent jurisdiction and the same has not been held to be invalid. Considering that and the other evidences on record, the Court below has found that the plaintiff being the purchaser of the suit premises from the rightful owner become the landlord. Learned Court below has also come to the finding that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for their own bonafide use and occupation. The said findings are based on thorough appraisal of evidences and materials on record. Under the said circumstances the decision in Mr. Kamruddin v. Brijnandan Prasad @ Moti and Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. I find no error or illegality in the said findings of the Court below warranting any interference by this Court. This civil revision is, accordingly dismissed.