IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.518 of 2009 1.Safi Mohamad. 2.Safiullah. 3.Nabiullah. 4.Abdullah. 5.Sabdullah. All sons of Late Azimullah, R/o Village- Jalalpur, P.S.- Revilganj, P.O.-Methwalia, District- Saran. ----------Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Idu Mahamad, Son of Late Rahman Mian. 2. Iduljoha, Son of Mustakim Mian alive. 3. Salim Mian, Son of Late Lyaket Mian. 4. Islam Mian, Son of Sher Mahamad Mian. 5. Kalam Mian. 6. Azazul Mian. 7. Bedrudin Mian. 8. Sedrudin Mian. Respondent No. 2 to 8 are sons of Late Sher Mahammad. Respondent No.1 resident of village- Revilganj, P.O. Revilganj, P.S. Revilganj, District- Saran, at present resident of Village- Jalalpur, P.S.- Revilganj, P.O. Methwalia, District-Saran and Respondents No.2 to 8 at present resident of village- Jalalpur, P.S.- Revilganj, P.O.- Methwalia, District- Saran. ---------Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- 7. 04.08.2011 Heard Mr.Radha Mohan Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of 2 this appeal. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009 passed by Additional District Judge III, Saran at Chapra in Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 1998 affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.06.1998 passed by Munsif IV, Saran at Chapra in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 1992. The plaintiffs, who are appellants here, have filed the Eviction Suit No.08/1992 seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit house on the ground of personal necessity with the specific case, bereft of details, that Plot No.901 belongs to the ancestor of the plaintiffs and Plot No. 902 was acquired by the ancestor of the plaintiffs by way of exchange from the ancestor of defendant 2nd Set in lieu of Plot No. 913 and after acquiring the aforesaid two plots, the suit premises was constructed and let out to the defendant no.1 on monthly rental of Rs. 30/- from 15.09.1990. It has been further case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 has sub let one of the rooms to the defendant no.2 and after May, 1992, the defendant no.1 (tenant) stopped payment of rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have asserted that in view of the increase in the 3 number of family members they require the suit premises for personal occupation and therefore the suit has been filed seeking eviction of the defendants. The defendant no.1 (tenant) appeared and filed his written statement and has admitted that the plot Nos.901 and 902 belonged to the ancestor of the plaintiffs. However defendant No.1 has claimed that 5 ½ Dhurs of Plot No.901 and 11 dhurs of Plot No. 902 had been purchased by his predecessor on the basis of oral sale and after the said purchase the house had been constructed and the defendant has been residing in the same with family in his own right. It has also been stated that the defendant No.2 is also in possession having acquired title by purchase from the defendant no.3 Salim Mian. The defendant (tenant) has thus denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in between himself and the plaintiff which has been the primary issue between the parties. The parties led their evidence and were heard by the learned Munsif who after considering the evidence and rival submissions of the parties has come to the finding that there does not exist relationship of landlord 4 and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the decree for eviction as prayed. In appeal, the appellate court after meticulously examining the evidence of the parties and considering the submissions made by the respective learned counsels has also concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and affirmed the finding recorded by the learned Munsif. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal has contended that both the courts below have erred in law in embarking upon a full fledged enquiry into the question of title of the parties which is not permissible under the limited scope of Rent Control Act and in this regard the learned counsel has relied upon a decision reported in 1985 PLJR 358. The learned counsel has further contended that there has been ample evidence on record to show that the defendant No.1 was the tenant of the plaintiff but both the courts below have ignored such evidence before recording the finding against the plaintiffs. Lastly the learned counsel Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, has submitted that once the story of oral purchase has been built up by the defendant (tenant) 5 he cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession over the suit premises and both the courts below again erred in law in upholding the independent possession of the defendant (tenant) in his own right and not as a tenant of the plaintiffs. After perusing the impugned judgments and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants as above mentioned it is clear that both the courts below have come to the concurrent finding of fact that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 with regard to the suit premises and the said finding has been arrived on the basis of consideration of the evidence on record. The documentary evidence as adduced by the defendants including Ext.A, Ext. C/1 and Ext.J support the case of the defendant and simultaneously there is no direct evidence establishing the story of tenancy as made out by the plaintiff and as such the courts below have rightly held that pleading of the plaintiff regarding induction of the defendant no.1as tenant is against the weight of evidence. As such a decree as claimed by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) 6 Control Act, 1992 could not have been granted. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. However the dismissal of this appeal will not prejudice the case of the plaintiffs if they bring an action with regard to title over the suit premises which shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)