9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood faith for the sons of the plaintiffs under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11, and (3) damage to the suit premises under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of The Bihar Building (Lease, Rent Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act'). The plaintiffs averred that they purchased the suit premises under three registered sale deeds of March 17, 1981, April 09, 1981, and April 14, 1981 from one Kedar Nath Sinha and immediately thereafter let them out to the defendant on monthly rent of ₹ 300/-; the defendant did not pay the rent from the date of the commencement of the tenancy. The plaintiffs have six sons; three of them are major. The plaintiffs wanted to set up their children in business as they are unemployed; they, therefore, require the suit premises in good faith. The defendant contested the suit denying that he took the suit premises on rent from the plaintiffs. He stated that he had taken the suit premises on rent from the said Kedar Nath Sinha about 33 years back. He, however, alleged that he entered into an agreement for purchase of the suit premises and a Mahadnama (agreement for sale) was executed by the said Kedar Nath Sinha in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plaintiffs purchased the same under three registered sale deeds from him; they had, therefore, prima facie title and as admittedly the said Kedar Nath Sinha had let out the same to the defendant, and equitable decree for his eviction ought to have been passed by the courts below. Inasmuch as the trial court on the basis of the sale deeds and statement of the vendor of the plaintiffs recorded the finding that the plaintiffs were the owner but the first appellate court did not go into that question, the High Court was right in directing the first appellate court to record a finding as to the title to the suit premises. Once the plaintiffs established their title to the suit premises, argued Ms. Madan, even if the defendant was held not to be the tenant, an equitable decree could always be passed against the defendant for eviction of the suit premises. 6. On the above contentions the question that arises for consideration is : whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the High Court is right in law in holding that an equitable decree for eviction of the defendant can be passed under Order VII Rule 7 of C.P.C. and remanding the case to the first appellate court for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just on the facts of the case to the same extent as if it has been asked for. The third part says that in regard to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement, the same rule shall apply. 11. In Firm Sriniwas Bam Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Ors. [1951]2SCR277 it is laid down by this Court: Ordinarily, the Court cannot grant relief to the plaintiff on a case for which there was no foundation in the pleadings which the other side was not called upon or had an opportunity to meet. But when the alternative case, which the plaintiff could have made, was not only admitted by the defendant in his written statement but was expressly put forward as an answer to the claim which the plaintiff made in the suit, there would be nothing improper in giving the plaintiff a decree upon the case which the defendant himself makes. A demand of the plaintiff based on the defendant's own plea cannot possibly be regarded with surprise by the latter no question of adducing evidence on these facts would arise when they were expressly admitted by the defendant in his pleadings. In such circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another. 14. Where the relief prayed for in the suit is a larger relief and if no case is made out for granting the same but the facts, as established, justify granting of a smaller relief. Order VII Rule 7 permits granting of such a relief to the parties. However, under the said provisions a relief larger than the one claimed by the plaintiff in the suit cannot be granted. 15. These are cases where the courts which tried the suits were ordinary civil court having jurisdiction to grant alternative reliefs and pass decree under Order VII Rule 7. A court of Rent Controller having limited jurisdiction to try suits on ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
