IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.31 of 2009 YOGENDRA MOHAN GUPTA, SON OF LATE DEVENDRA MOHAN GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-PURANI BAZAR LAKSHISARAI, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. …………………..(PLAINITFF,APPELLANT)-APPELLANT. Versus 1. RAMDAS MISTRI, SON OF LATE TILAK MISTRI. 2. KATIMAN MISTRI @ DAS, SON OF AALO DAS @ ALLO MISTRI @ DAS. 3. GANGU PANDIT, SON OF LATE BORHAN PANDIT @ LATE BORHAN PANDIT. 4. GOVIND PANDIT @ BUDHO PANDIT @ GOBIND PANDIT @ BUROH PANDIT, SON OF MUSO PANDIT. 5. BHUNESHWAR PANDIT, SON OF DILCHAND PANDIT. ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-PURANI BAZAR LAKHISARAI, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI. ………(DEFENDANT,RESPONDENTS)-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Bharat Lal, Advocate. ------------ 4. 9.11.2010. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6th of September, 2008 passed in Title Appeal No.16 of 2004 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Lakhisarai, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 passed in Title Eviction Suit No.4 of 1992 by the Munsif, Lakhisarai, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, has 2 been affirmed. The plaintiff-appellant has brought the title eviction suit concerned for evicting the defendants, who are occupying the different portions of the house described in Schedule-I of the plaint on the grounds of default in payment of rent as well as bonafide and reasonable personal requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff himself. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants were inducted by his father as tenants and they were paying rent. However, they defaulted in payment of rent from the month of January, 1991 to the month of March, 1992. That apart, they have also sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The defendants contested the suit by stating that different persons have been impleaded as defendants, who are allegedly occupying different portions of the house concerned and are not related to each other in a single suit. They claimed independent title over the suit lands concerned and, thus, have contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. They have also stated that, in fact, their houses are on plot nos.802 and 804 whereas the plaintiff has brought the suit for the house standing over plot nos.803 and 804. The plaintiff has claimed his title upon the settlement of the 3 concerned land in the year 1924 by the erstwhile landlord upon accepting the salami of Rs.83/- and putting the ancestors of the plaintiff in possession and in acceptance thereof issuing a hukumnana with regard to the plot nos.803 and 804 appertaining to khata no.449 of a total area of 13 decimals. Whereas defendant no.1 has stated that he had purchased the land of plot nos.802 and 804 in the name of his wife by a registered sale deed dated 3.12.1980 of an area of 1 katha, 3 dhoors and 2 dhurki and came in possession thereof bearing Holding No.378 of Ward No.6 of Lakhisarai Municipality. Similarly, according to the defendant no.2, he has also purchased the land by a registered sale deed with regard to plot nos.802 and 804 in the name of his wife and its holding number is 379. The claim of the defendant no.3 is that he has also purchased the land in the name of his grand father by a registered sale deed (3 ¾ decimals of plot nos.802 and 804). The other defendants have also claimed the land as purchased by them. As per the appellant, on earlier occasion the suit was dismissed. However, the judgment and decree was challenged in appeal. The appellate court, after setting aside the decree, remitted the matter for fresh determination. 4 Thereafter, the trial court, in all, framed 9 issues and upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence has held that from the evidence led on behalf of the parties, it appears that plot nos.802 and 804 are adjacent plots whereas plot no.803 is not adjacent to them and defendant nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 by one written statement and defendant no.4 by another separate written statement have claimed their portions of plot nos.802 and 804 as purchased by them. The trial court has held that a title suit with regard to plot nos.802, 803 and 804 was brought by the father of the plaintiff, namely, Devendra Mohan Gupta, for declaration of title and recovery of possession against Muso Kumhar and others, however, that suit was dismissed on 27.9.1956. Thus, it is clear that the father of the plaintiff was not in possession in the year 1956 and for that reason he had filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. On the other hand, the defendants have claimed their title upon purchase through different registered sale deeds. The trial court upon consideration of the materials on record has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant with the defendants. It has also been noticed by the trial court that the plaintiff, who has been 5 examined as P.W.1, has stated in his evidence that he does not have any documentary proof of claimed tenancy and he has never granted any receipt to the tenants with regard to the acceptance of rent. In the above view of the matter, the trial court after holding that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and also, recording findings on other issues, has ultimately dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged in Title Appeal No.16 of 2004. However, the lower appellate court has also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and has recorded a finding that when the father of the plaintiff was not having title and possession of the land, as he had filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against Muso Kumhar, the story set up by the plaintiff that his father had constructed 7 rooms and inducted the defendants as tenants does not seem conceivable and, thus, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove the landlord and tenant relationship. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that both the courts below have erred in recoding a finding that the 6 landlord and tenant relationship does not exist between the parties. Learned counsel has pointed out that at least with regard to plot no.803, the eviction suit should have been decreed as the defendants themselves do not claim to have purchased the plot no.803 rather they have only claimed to have purchased parts of the plot nos.802 and 804. However, the appellate court has considered this question and has recorded a finding that the plaintiff himself has stated in his evidence that the part of the plot no.803 is in the bed of river, however, certain part still remains out of it but he could not point out as to how much area is in the bed of river and how much is still out of it and who is occupying that part. It has also been noticed that plot nos.802 and 804 are adjacent to each other whereas the plot no.803 is not adjacent to them. That apart, for all the three aforesaid plots, i.e., plot nos.802, 803 and 804, as has been noticed by both the courts below, the father of the plaintiff had brought a suit in the year 1956 for declaration of title and recovery of possession against one Muso Kumhar but the suit has been dismissed. Thus, it cannot be accepted that the father of the plaintiff, who was not in possession of the suit land in the year 1956, has constructed 7 rooms and inducted the 7 defendants as tenants. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any error in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below and could not show his claim that after loosing title suit in the year 1956, the father of plaintiff again came into the possession of the suit property. As a result, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant could not point out any error leading to any substantial question of law. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)