P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN,C.J. - (1.) THE defendant in a suit for eviction under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, who was also the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the building in question, is the appellant in both these second appeals. He is herein after referred to as the tenant.
(2.) THE suit for eviction was filed by the respondents the landlords mainly on the plea that the building was let out to the appellant in the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ - that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent and that the respondents required the building for their personal occupation. The respondents prayed for a decree for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises and also for a decree for arrears of rent for three years together with costs of the suit and other incidental reliefs. The suit was resisted by the appellant by pleading that even though originally he, was a tenant of the building, and he was allowed to occupy the building in question on payment of a monthly rent up to January 1981, the landlords had, thereafter, agreed to sell the building to him under an agreement for sale, that the occupation of the appellant pursuant to the agreement for sale was in the capacity of an intended vendee, that the alleged personal requirement set up by the respondents was not true, that the rent was not in arrears and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) IN his turn, the appellant also filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale invoking the Specific Relief Act and seeking a decree in that behalf. The landlord denied the agreement for sale set up.;