GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties. The opposite party filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 16 of 1998 against the defendant-petitioner for his eviction from the suit shop detailed in Schedule A to the plaint under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') on the grounds of personal necessity and expiry of lease. The defendant-petitioner claimed that she was inducted as tenant in the suit shop directly by the owner of 'Sen Mansion' at Hirapur, Dhanbad, measuring 5'x7', being a portion of Holding No. 2 (old) in Ward No. 4 (old) of Dhanbad Municipality and the plaintiff had no locus standi to claim himself to be the landlord of the suit shop within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Act. She was never a tenant under the plaintiff and she was paying rent to the owner regularly. There was no question of any fixed term of tenancy. However, in the alternative personal necessity was also denied.
(2.) DURING pendency of the suit, the trial Court passed an order under Section 15 of the Act which was not complied with and, therefore, the defendant's defence against ejectment was struck off by order dated 17-2-2001. However, the suit proceeded treating the plaintiff to be the landlord of the suit shop, whereas admittedly as stated in paragraph 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff was inducted as tenant in the suit shop by the owner of the building 'Sen Mansion' and as such his capacity in respect of the suit shop was that of a tenant only. In course of hearing of the suit, the plaintiff brought on record the unregistered agreement dated 28-6-1996 between him and the defendant inducting her as a qua tenant in the suit shop for eleven months. The said document was marked as Exhibit 1.
(3.) A perusal of the said agreement reveals that the plaintiff had inducted the defendant as tenant in shop No. 8 at monthly rental of Rs. 600/- payable by her to the plaintiff. She had also deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of security with the plaintiff, which was to be returned after expiry of eleven months period of the agreement. It was also mentioned therein that every month the rental of the shop in question shall be paid by the plaintiff to the owner of 'Sen Mansion' without any break and if the rental or more than two months fell due, both the plaintiff and the defendant shall be jointly responsible to vacate the shop.;