Supreme Court Allows Landlords in Bihar Rent Control Eviction Suit — Striking Out Tenant's Defence for Non-Payment of Arrears Under Section 11A Bars Tenant's Plea That Co-Sharer Landlords Alone Could Not Sue. Tenant Who Admitted Paying Rent to Landlords Cannot Contest Title After Defence Struck Out; Plea That Landlords Owned Only Share Is Plea Qua Tenant, Not Dehors Relationship.

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a suit for eviction instituted by the appellants, who were landlords, against the respondent tenant in respect of premises situated in Patna, governed by the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. The appellants claimed that the respondent had been inducted as a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 135 per month and that, as a result of a decree in a partition suit, the premises had fallen to their share and they had become absolute owners. They sought eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent, breach of conditions of tenancy, and bona fide personal requirement. The respondent initially pleaded that the actual tenant was Liberty and Co., a firm name, and that the appellants were not absolute owners because other co-sharers also had shares. The suit was instituted on 27-9-1962. On 18-12-1963 the appellants filed an application under Section 11A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, seeking a direction for deposit of arrears and current and future rent. The trial court passed an order under Section 11A on 6-2-1964 directing the respondent to deposit the amounts, while also protecting the respondent's interest by directing that the appellants not withdraw the amounts until disposal of the suit. The respondent defaulted in compliance, and by order dated 8-7-1964 the trial court struck out the respondent's defence against ejectment. That order was confirmed by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 824 of 1964. The suit was thereafter heard ex parte on 1-7-1967; the third plaintiff was examined as a witness and supported the case of absolute ownership and tenancy. The Munsif, Third Court, Patna, passed an ex parte decree directing eviction. The first appellate court, the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Patna, dismissed the respondent's appeal on 21-4-1969. In second appeal No. 262 of 1969, a single judge of the Patna High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case for fresh trial, holding that because the respondent had not admitted the appellants as full owners and claimed that other co-sharers had shares, there was a denial of the landlord-tenant relationship; consequently, the striking out of the defence qua tenant did not bar the respondent from contesting the suit on the question of title. The High Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Mahabir Ram v. Shiva Shanker Prasad and Ors. The appellants challenged the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the respondent's plea that the appellants were only co-sharer landlords and could not alone maintain the suit amounted to a denial of the landlord-tenant relationship, and whether the striking out of the defence under Section 11A prevented the respondent from contesting title. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent's claim that Liberty and Co. was the tenant was a mere pretence, as that was only a business name and not a separate legal entity. The respondent had admitted paying rent to the appellants and had recognised them as landlords. Therefore, it was not a case of denial of landlord-tenant relationship. The plea that the appellants were landlords of only a share and that other co-sharers also had shares was a plea qua tenant, not dehors it. The court distinguished Mahabir Ram, where the tenant had denied the title of the landlords and set up title in himself. Here the landlords were within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act. The order striking out the defence had the effect of striking out all defences raised by the respondent qua tenant, including the defence about co-sharer landlords. Consequently, the ex parte hearing and the ex parte decree were legal and valid, and there was no error of law in the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the ex parte eviction decree, with no order as to costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal allowed; judgment of Patna High Court set aside; ex-parte eviction decree passed by Munsif restored; no order as to costs

Law Points