2001 (11) TMI 1043 - SC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of rent.
2. Reasonable personal requirement.
3. Damage to the suit premises.
4. Relationship of landlord and tenant.
5. Jurisdiction under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
6. Equitable decree for eviction under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Title to the suit premises.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in Payment of Rent:
The respondents-plaintiffs alleged that the appellant-defendant defaulted in payment of rent from August 14, 1981, under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (the Act). The plaintiffs contended that the defendant did not pay the rent from the commencement of the tenancy.

2. Reasonable Personal Requirement:
The plaintiffs argued that they required the suit premises in good faith for their sons, who were unemployed, under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs on this ground, but the defendant contested the claim, denying the reasonableness and bona fides of the plaintiffs' requirement.

3. Damage to the Suit Premises:
The plaintiffs also sought eviction on the ground of damage to the suit premises under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. However, the trial court dismissed the suit for eviction.

4. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The trial court found no relationship of "landlord and tenant" between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant claimed he had taken the suit premises on rent from the previous owner, Kedar Nath Sinha, and entered into an agreement for purchase, asserting possession as the owner. Both the trial court and the first appellate court affirmed the absence of such a relationship, which was crucial for granting relief under the Act.

5. Jurisdiction under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982:
The courts, including the High Court, were exercising jurisdiction under the Act, a special enactment. The sine qua non for granting relief was the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The scope of inquiry was limited to whether grounds for eviction under the Act were made out. The question of title was irrelevant given the definitions of "landlord" and "tenant" in the Act.

6. Equitable Decree for Eviction under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The High Court remanded the case to the first appellate court to decide the question of title and pass an equitable decree for eviction under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Supreme Court held that a court exercising limited jurisdiction under the Act could not decide the title or pass an equitable decree for eviction on grounds not specified in the Act. Order VII Rule 7 pertains to drafting relief in a plaint and does not apply to cases under the limited jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

7. Title to the Suit Premises:
The High Court's direction to the first appellate court to determine the title was deemed unwarranted and unsustainable by the Supreme Court. The inquiry into the title was beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction under the Act. The Supreme Court clarified that the plaintiffs could file a separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit and allowing the defendant's appeal. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs could file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession within three months, to be tried along with the defendant's pending suit for specific performance. The appeal was allowed without costs.

← Previous Next →