PETITIONER: ASHOK KUMAR SAHAY Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMA SHANKAR PRASAD DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1994 BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 638 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
1. Though the appellant-landlord succeeded in the trial
court, that success was actually short-lived. The High
Court reversed the decree. The landlord obtained a decree
for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. His plea in
the plaint was that he was a Karta of the joint family of
two branches, namely, Sureshwar Sahay and Madheshwar Sahay.
However, as PW 1 he deposed as under :
” The disputed-house stands in the names of
Sureshwar Sahay and Madheshwar Sahay. Prior
to them, this house belonged to their mother,
namely, Indramani Kunwar. She has a daughter,
namely, Girja Devi. The name of Girja Devi
was not entered in mutation because she did
not raise
639
any objection. In 1982, Indramani Kunwar had
died. I am a Karta of the family of
Madheshwar Sahay. The disputed land belongs
to both of the brothers. I am a Karta Khandan
of half share. There is no written partition
but verbal partition has been made. I have
not instituted a case on behalf of all the
landlords of the house as I am not a Kart
a
Khandan of all the landlords. From the very
childhood, I knew the defendant. Formerly,
the defendant had opened a shop of radio by
covering asbestos on my parti land which is by
the side of the present shop. He used to pay
rent therefore but I cannot say whether he got
receipts thereof or not.”
2. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not been
properly appreciated by the trial court which ended in a’
decree in favour of the landlord. The High court, finding
that the landlord does not represent the branch of Sureshwar
came to the view that he does not represent the entire body
of co-sharers and partition had not been proved, so as to
establish that the suit property had been allotted in favour
of the branch represented by the landlord. In assailing
these findings two contentions are urged before us :
(1) Section II (1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act
whereunder the landlord is enabled to seek
eviction, not only on his own behalf, but on
behalf of any person for whose benefit the
building is held by him, and (2) Section 116
of the Evidence Act raising a presumption in
favour of the landlord.
3. We find neither of these contentions could be held to
be tenable. No doubt, Section 11 (1)(c) enables the
landlord to seek eviction on the ground that he reasonably
and in good faith requires
(a) for his own occupation or for the occupation of any
person; or
(b) for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the
building is held by him.
4. But in this case, having regard to the deposition
extracted above, the landlord does not represent the branch
of Sureshwar Sahay. Therefore, not the person holding the
building on behalf of that branch. As regards Section 116
of the Evidence Act, no doubt, the tenant is estopped from
denying the title of the landlord, but the case proceeded on
bona fide need and, therefore, this will not affect the
finding in relation to that bona fide need. The civil
appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. The dismissal will
not preclude the other remedies of the landlord seeking
eviction.
640