IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9908 of 2011 Uday Narayan Gupta & Anr Versus Bijay Kumar Keshri ---------------------------------- O R D E R 06. 27.09.2011. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Harshwardhan Sahay, on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Praveen Chandra Prasad, on behalf of the respondent. (2) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the order dated 15.03.2011 passed by Munsif IInd, Munger in eviction suit No.5 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted by the defendant-respondent. He also admitted that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs.410/- to Bijli Devi. However, on the death of Bijli Devi, when the petitioner succeeded to the same as her legal heir, the defendant-respondent did not pay the rent. Hence the petitioner filed the eviction suit. In spite of above admitted fact, the learned Court below rejected the application under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act on the ground that there is deed of agreement to sell the property by Bijli Devi in - 2 - favour of defendant. According to the learned counsel, the defendant claimed that a deed of agreement was executed by Bijli Devi in her favour to sell the property in the year 1995, i.e., dated 03.12.1995 which is unregistered deed. Mostt. Bijli Devi died on 10.12.2008 but during this period, the defendant never filed any suit for specific performance of contract nor he obtained any registered sale deed rather he is only relying upon so called unregistered deed of agreement dated 03.12.1995. In such view of the matter, the learned Court below gravely erred in not directing the respondent to pay the rent of the suit premises arrears and current. (4) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submitted that in the agreement itself, it has been mentioned that if no registered sale deed will be executed, the said agreement will be considered to be the sale deed and title will vest on the defendant. Therefore, considering this document, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. (5) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has given much emphasis on the said unregistered deed of agreement dated 03.12.1995. No sale deed has been obtained. It is well settled principle of law that deed of agreement will never create title in favour of any person. It is also well settled principle of law that if statute requires that title will pass only after - 3 - registration of a sale deed then title will pass only after registration of the sale deed and by no other means. Here, it appears that there is some recital in the said agreement that if no sale deed will be executed then the agreement will be construed as sale deed and title will be conferred on the defendant. (6) From perusal of the writ statement filed by the defendant-petitioner, it appears that the rate of rent and also relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted by the defendant. It is also admitted that he was paying rent to Bijli Devi. According to the plaintiff, he was paying rent to the plaintiff also. The learned Court below on the basis of this unregistered deed of agreement rejected the application. I, therefore, find that the impugned order passed by the Court below is untenable. As the said order has been passed in utter disregard of the provision as contained in Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. The learned Court below was required to find out a prima facie case regarding relationship of landlord and tenant. At this stage, the Court is not required to go deep and investigate the title between the title in an eviction suit. The learned Court below observed that the plaintiff failed to produce any document to show that he is the heir of Bijili Devi. As stated above, this question could not have been decided at this stage and moreover the relationship appears to be admitted. (7) In view of the above facts, it appears that the - 4 - learned Court below approached the case in wrong angle and the order suffers from jurisdictional error. (8) In view of the above facts, the impugned order dated 15.03.2011 passed in eviction suit No.5 of 2009 by Munsif IInd, Munger is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for passing a fresh order according to law. (9) Thus this writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 27thday of September, 2011 Sanjeev/N.A.F.R.