- (1.) This civil revision application has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 ('the Act for short) against the judgment dated 8.2.2008 passed by learned Munsif II, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 1 of 2004 decreeing the suit filed under the provision of Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act on the ground of personal necessity against the original defendant -petitioner -Haradhan Chakraborty. The petitioners have been substituted. The original defendant and his substituted heirs will be referred as "petitioners  and the plaintiff will be referred as "the opposite party  for the sake of convenience.
(2.) THE case of the opposite party, in short, is that she purchased the suit premises by registered sale deed no. 4239 dated 17.6.2003 from the Shiva Nath Senapati and got her name mutated. The petitioners were inducted as tenant by Shiva Nath Senapati on monthly rental of Rs. 500/ -per month including electricity charges. The opposite party required the suit premises for personal use and occupation as her family was staying with other relatives, where there is serious shortage of accommodation. Two growing sons were to be married, but because of shortage of accommodation, their marriage deferred. In spite of notice, the petitioners did not vacate the suit premises. During pendency of the suit, the eldest son was married and the opposite party had to take another premises on rent. The case of the petitioners was that, the suit was not maintainable; the said sale deed in favour of the opposite party was illegal as the vendor Shiva Nath Senapati was not the sole owner. He was inducted as tenant by Khitish Chandra Senapati, father of Shiva Nath Senapati and after his death the property devolved on all his successors under whom he became tenant. Subsequently, his occupational status changed as he entered into an agreement for sale with Shiva Nath Senapati on 3.3.2000. A suit was filed by Shiva Narayan Senapati and Neela Senapati i.e. brother and sister of Shiv Nath Senapati, being Title Suit No. 153 of 2000 against Shiva Nath Senapati seeking declaration that the Schedule A property was joint property of all brothers and sisters and as such Shiva Nath Senapati alone did not have right to sell Schedule A property to the petitioners and, therefore, due to pendency of the said suit Shiva Nath Senapati did not execute sale deed, but he assured that after resolving all disputes with his brothers and sisters he would sell the premises along with them and therefore, the petitioners were awaiting the performance of agreement of sale dated 3.3.2000. The petitioners further stated that they learnt from the plaint that the suit premises was sold to the opposite party. Such sale was done in a clandestine manner and in contravention of the said agreement which was still subsisting. Brother and sister of Shiv Nath Senapati -Shiv Narayan Senapati and Neela Senapati also filed a suit being Title Suit No. 158 of 2003 challenging the said sale in favour of the opposite party. It was further said that the petitioners also filed a suit being Title Suit No. 37 of 2004 for specific performance of agreement dated 3.3.2000. The ground of bonafide personal requirement was not denied and disputed, and only this much was said that as no relationship of landlord and tenant existed and, therefore, the opposite party cannot claim eviction on any ground. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that suit is not maintainable and that the petitioners are entitled to protection under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act ('T. P. Act for short), as they were/are occupying the suit premises in part performance of the agreement to sell, as the owners. He further submitted that the husband of the opposite party (P.W.1) admitted in paragraph 23 of his cross -examination that petitioners were not his tenant. He relied on the judgment reported in (2002) 3 SCC 676 Smt. Shamrao Suryavanshi and another Vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi and others and (2001) 2 JLJR 372 (SC) P. Kanthimathi and others Vs. Mrs. Beatrice Xavier. He did not challenge any other findings.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the son of the original defendant (DW 1) in paragraph 5 of his cross -examination clearly admitted that they were living in the suit premises as tenant. He relied on (2003) 1 JLJR 591 Sheikh Sohrab Vs. Md. Kasim Ansari and another.;