JUDGMENT
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. Holding No. 488 situated in Ward No. 1 of Giridin Municipality belonged to one Pratul Chandra Banerjee, who died leaving behind his widow and eight sons. His widow died in the year 1954. Plaintiff purchased the said house property by registered sale deed dated 14.10.1980 from aforesaid heirs and legal representatives of late Pratul Chandra Banerjee.
2. One Bhairav Chandra Roy was inducted as tenant in aprt of the said holding on monthly rental of Rs. 30/-. He died leaving behind his widow, Renuka Roy and a son, Gurupada Roy, who were living in the premises at the relevatn time. When the plaintiff purchased the holding. Hence on 15.1.1981 plaintiff’s vendors gave lawyer’s notice to
them informing about the aforesaid transfer and intimated to attorn the plaintiff as landlady and pay all arrears of rent and future rent to her. However, the tenants did not pay any rent to the plaintiff. On 12.2.1981 plaintiff also sent lawyers notice to the tenants to vacate the premises.
3. Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 83 of 1981 for defendants’ eviction from the suit premises, described in Schedule at the foot of plaint under the provisions of Bihar Buildings. (Lease. Rent & Eviction) Control Act. on the ground of personal necessity, default in payment oft rent and breach of tenancy. A decree for recovery of arrears of rent was also sought for.
4. Plaintiffs ease was that she had no
other house-in Giridih town and so she has
purchased the holding in question tor her
residential purpose. Defendants did not pay
rent to her and so they were defaulters within
the meaning of Law. Plaintiff also alleged that
they were malaciously damaging the roof.
floor and other materials of the suit premises,
For the aforesaid reasons they were liable to be evicted therefrom.
5. Defendants’ case was that Bhairo Chandra Roy was permitted to occupy the suit premises by plaintiffs vendors in the capacity of pujari. During his life time in 1932. Pratul Chandra Banerjee had gifted the suit premises to his wife. Rndha Rani Devi. who in her turn had made oral gift of it to Bhairo Chandra Roy in the year 1940. After death of Pratul Chandra Banerjee Holding No. 488 did not devolve on plaintiffs vendors and they had no right to transfer it to plaintiff.
6. Defendants denied knowledge of transfer dated 14.10.1980 as also any relationship of landlady and tenant. According to them plaintiff was neither entitled to realise rent nor to evict them from the suit premises. Five daughters of defendant No. 1 were also living in the premises but they were not made parties to the suit. So the suit was also bad for non-jointler of parties. The plain-tiff possessed a big house in Giridah main town and she was living therein with her husband and other family members. There was no reason to damage their own house by the defendants. They also claimed to have perfected their title over the premises in question by adverse possession.
7. Under the sale deed. Ext. 4, plaintiffs vendor had also given her authority to realise arrears of rent from tenants.
8. In order to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the defendants, plaintiff brought on record an application filed by Renuka Roy. defendant No. 1 and others before House Controller on 21.6.1980, wherein it was specifically admitted that in part and portion of municipal holding No. 488 “Radha Rani Kutir” situated within Ward No. 8 of Giridih Municipality. Bhairo Chandra Roy was inducted as a tenant under the landlord Sri Pratul Chandra inducted as Banerjee and after death of Bhairo Chandra Roy, the applicants, namely. Renuka Roy and others were living therein. It was marked as Ext. 8. On the basis of said application. Case No. 14 of 1980 was registered before Mouse Controller. Giridhar Ajit Kumar Banerjee and Pran Ankur Banerjee sons of late Pratul Chandra Banerjee were made opposite parties therein, who were obstructing in tenants’ enjoyment on well, latrine, bathroom and adjoining passage in their use.
9. The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of aforesaid admission of defendant No. 1 in Ext. 8. holding that there was relationship of landlady and tenant between the parlies. It is relevant to stale that although this document. Ext. 8 was brought on record during the plaintiffs evidence and was proved by PW 9. The contesting defendants did not come either to deny or to explain aforesaid admission, as required in law,
10. The Court of appeal below committed an error of record in observing that Ext. 8 was not brought on record prior in closure of evidence of parties. A perusal of lower Court record shows that Ext. 8 was proved by PW 9 and was admitted in evidence on 6.6.1984. Thereafter defendants look adjournment to adduce evidence in rebuttal on 7.6.1984 but did not adduce any evidence and hence arguments of both sides were heard and concluded on 7.6.1984 and suit was fixed for judgment on 13.6.1984.
11. In my view, the Court of appeal below in view of aforesaid admission of defendant No. 1 and others erred in holding that there was mi relationship of landlord and tenant belween the parties. Since the present suit was a pure suit for eviction under the
aforesaid Act, question of title at the instance of defendants could not have been gone into and decided herein. It is clarified that observations finding, if any. given in the judgments passed by the two Courts below are not to operate as res-judicata in a regular suit for declaration of title instituted between the parties for the property in question. The resent suit under the aforesaid Act was maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff. I hold that there was relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties and defendants were liable to be evicted from the suit premises, on being defaulter in payment of rent within the meaning of the Act.
12. I. therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court of appeal below and confirm the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The suit stands decreed.
13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Lower Court records may be sent down.
14. Appeal allowed.