Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Variava
Date of Judgement: 20/03/2002
Facts:
The appellants were the defendants in the suit in which their eviction was sought by the respondents-plaintiffs from an area of 47 Kari comprising of house and Golla situated in Plot Nos.797 and 798 appertaining to khata No.131 under Tauzi No.414 Thana No.239 in Arrah Municipal Area (for short, ’the suit premises’) on the grounds of bona fide personal necessity and default in payment of rent under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short, ’the Act’). The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the First Appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed on September 6, 1995. The appellants then filed Second Appeal No.24 of 1996 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. When the case came up before the High Court on August 12, 1998, nobody was present on behalf of the appellants. However, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal on merits. The appellants then filed the aforementioned review petition which was also dismissed on February 2, 2001. The said judgments and orders are brought under challenge in these appeals by special leave.
Judgement:
There can be no doubt that the High Court erroneously interpreted Rule 11(1) of Order 41, CPC. The only course open to the High Court was to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution in the absence of advocate for the appellants. The High Court ought not to have considered the merits of the case to dismiss the Second Appeal. [See : Rafiq & Anr. vs. Munshi Lal & Anr. [1981 (2) SCC 788]. The same view was reiterated in Abdur Rahman & Ors. vs. Athifa Begum & Ors. [1996 (6) SCC 62].
Mr.S.B.Sanyal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, argued that the appellants were inducted into possession of the premises as tenants. They, however, denied the title of the respondents and the courts below found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties existed. He further contended that the possession of the premises was taken by the respondents on execution of the decree as long back as in 1986, therefore, the case need not be remanded to the High Court as it would only prolong the litigation. However, Mr.Pandey submitted that under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the land in question vested in the State as held by this Court in Mst.Bibi Sayeeda & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [1996 (9) SCC 516], therefore, the respondents could not be said to be the landlords and that by virtue of the patta granted by the erstwhile landlord before coming into force of the Act, the appellants became patta holders and the respondents did not get any title from the erstwhile landlord as by that time the Act had come into force and the land vested in the State so erstwhile landlord had no title to transfer the land in favour of the respondents. The Court does not want to express any opinion on this controversy.
In the Court’s view, under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. Having regard to the finding of the First Appellate Court that the appellants executed a registered Kabuliyat (Ex.8) in favour Chandmati Devi (mother of the plaintiffs) as well as in favour of other co-sharers having patta (Ex.7) in respect of the suit premises and that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and taking note of the fact that the possession of the premises was taken by the respondents as long back as in 1986 and long before filing of the appeal, in our view, it is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal which would only prolong the litigation without any useful purpose. In the result while correcting the error of law committed by the High Court, the Court does not disturb the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sudipta Bhowmick, 4th Year, KIIT School of Law.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS