REYAZ Vs. RAM KRISHNA RAJAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. This revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)Control Act, 1982 against the order of eviction dated 15.01.2011 passed in Eviction Suit No. 04/09 by Munsif I, Munger. The parties, hereinafter, shall be referred by their position in the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the eviction suit no.04/09 praying for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity alone. THE material facts of the plaintiff's case are that the residential house described in Schedule 1 of the plaint originally belonged to Sakun Dhobi who died leaving behind two sons namely Jageshwar Rajak and Kaleshwar Rajak. THE suit property remained joint among the descendants of Jageshwar Rajak and Kaleshwar Rajak who sold the said entire house to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 04.03.09 and delivered possession to him. THE plaintiff got his name mutated in the municipality as well as in the Register II and has been paying the rent and getting rent receipts. As the sale deed could not be executed by Raj Rani Devi, who was the widow of Hari Lal Rajak, one of the sons of Jaleshwar Rajak, due to illness on the date of execution of the sale deed, she executed an Ekrarnama on 16.03.2009 in favour of the plaintiff acknowledging the sale deed and transfer of her ? share to the plaintiff in the suit house and accepting that she has also received her share of consideration money from the plaintiff and his title over the entire sold property. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant had been inducted as tenant by Raj Rani Devi in her share of the suit house on 18.08.08 on monthly rental of Rs.15,000/-and after the execution of the Ekrarnama, she asked the defendant to pay the rent of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff as he had purchased the entire Schedule 1 house. Later on the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the tenanted premises as the plaintiff required the same for starting his own business and for accommodation of his big family but the defendant, in spite of the request of the plaintiff, did not pay the arrears of rent since 04.03.2009 nor vacated the tenanted premises. Consequently, the plaintiff filed this suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity alone.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and perusing the impugned order it is pellucid that the defendant is a tenant of the tenanted premises and he has claimed his tenancy on the basis of the Kiraynama dated 12.07.2008. This Kiraynama has been marked as Ext.A in the suit with objection. On the basis of the terms of this Kiraynama, stipulating the period of tenancy to be 5 years from 15.08.2008 to 15.08.2013 and payment of advance money of Rs. 30,000/-, the defendant has claimed that he cannot be evicted from the tenanted premises before the expiry of 5 years and the refund of Rs. 30,000/- which, according to him, the plaintiff has never offered to pay. This Kiraynama(Ext.A) is admittedly an unregistered document but creates the tenancy for 5 years. In view of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, this document being a lease for a term exceeding one year, was required to be registered. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act may be taken notice of in this regard which runs as under:-