IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.599 of 2008 RADHA RAMAN son of late Laxmi Narayan Chaudhary,resident of village Singhaul,P.O.Singhaul, P.S. Mufassil, District Begusarai … … Petitioner Versus 1. SMT.LALO DEVI wife of Shri Paras Nath Sah 2. Kishori Prasad, son of Sitaram Prasad, both residents of village Harrakh, P.S.Town Begusarai, P.o.Begusarai,District Begusarai … … … Opp. Parties For the petitioner: Shri Lalit Kishore,Sr. Adv. Shri Rakesh Kumar Shri Krishna Kant Singh Shri Srikant Sharma For the Opp. Parties: Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Adv. ----------- O R D E R This revision petition challenges the judgment dated 29.2.2008 and decree dated 10.3.2008 passed in pursuance thereto in Title (Eviction) Suit No.1 of 2005 by the learned Munsif II, Begusarai. By the above judgment and decree the learned trial court held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between Savitri Devi, the vendor of the plaintiffs and the solitary defendant. It further held that the deed of conveyance by way of transferring the suit premises was duly executed by the said Savitri Devi in favour of the plaintiffs who were in dire personal necessitity of the suit premises for the purposes of a business to be 2 started by their sons and further that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent. The learned trial court, as such, directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises, as per the description of Schedule-I of the plaint, in sixty days of the judgment and decree, else, he was to be evicted by the process of law. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they had purchased the suit premises appertaining to Khata No 55, Khesara No.85 with a house as per the description in Schedule I of the plaint by a registered deed of sale executed by Savitri Devi, (D.W. 4) in favour of the plaintiffs on 19.5.1990 and further that the said Savitri Devi had acquired the suit premises from one Balmiki Prasad Singh through a sale deed on 28.4.1987 and had let out the same on the monthly rental of Rs. 1100/- to the solitary defendant who was running the business of auto spares in one room of the suit premises along with the whole of the land appertaining to the building both in front of it and in its 3 backyard. It was stated that as soon as the plaintiffs acquired the title, they stepped into the shoes of the landlord and were entitled to the monthly rental of Rs. 1100/- but the defendant failed in making the payment. The plaintiffs required the premises for carrying on the business by their two sons and requested the defendant to vacate it but the defendant stopped paying rent from February 2004 and also did not vacate the premises in spite of repeated requests. The plaintiffs lastly sent two notices through their Advocate on 28.2.2004 and 29.9.2004 without any result and, ultimately, the oral request of the plaintiffs for vacating the premises was also turned down on 20.1.2005. The plaintiffs claimed the decree of eviction as also the decree in favour of the arrears of rent at Rs. 13,200 for twelve months on tenancy. 3. The solitary petitioner in the present revision petition filed his written statement and stated that the plaintiffs were never the landlords of the premises and there was no relationship of 4 landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant petitioner and because Savitri Devi, D.W.4 had let out the premises to him he was paying rent to her at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month which was initially at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. The petitioner also stated that the statement that Savitri Devi had executed registered deed of sale in favour of the plaintiffs was an incorrect statement and she had not transferred the premises. 4. The learned court below framed eight issues and went on to decide them in the light of the evidence and held that there was an admission about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant petitioner by the defendant and for deciding whether the petitioner defendant could be held to be the tenant of the plaintiffs as well, it considered the evidence and thereafter held that on account of transfer of the land which appears probabilised by the evidence on record, the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs also. It further considered the issue of default in payment of monthly 5 rental and he decided the issued in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned court below also considered the issue on the ground of personal necessitity on which the eviction had been sought for and that issue was again decided in favour of the plaintiffs as a result of which a decree of eviction was passed against the present petitioner defendant. 5. Shri Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner before me was submitting that there was a subsequent event, as for setting aside the sale deed dated 19.5.1990, Exts. 1 and 1/A, the said Savitri Devi,(D.W.4) had filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 296 of 2005 and, as such, the decision of the learned court below that she had conveyed the suit premises through the two registered deeds of sale executed by her in favour of the plaintiffs was not a correct finding. The said Savitri Devi through her evidence on record of the trial court has denied having executed the sale deeds and, as such, the plaintiffs‟ claim that they were the landlord and the finding to that effect 6 recorded by the learned trial court could not be sustained in law. This was the solitary issue which was raised before me in the present revision petition. In support of the above contention Shri Kishore took me through the evidence of D.W. 4 Savitri Devi which was brought on record by a supplementary affidavit filed on 21.5.2009. 6. For deciding the solitary issue in the present revision petition what is required to be considered is as to whether the finding of the learned trial court regarding acquisition of title by the plaintiffs though the two registered sale deeds was correct or not. The issue of personal necessitity or default of payment of arrears of rent was never agitated before me. It was only submitted that in the light of denial of D.W. 4 Savitri Devi of the execution of the sale deeds transferring the suit premises to the plaintiffs, the whole decree and judgment were vitiated. 7. The two sale deeds are registered sale deeds and they have been 7 brought on record as Exts. 1 and 1/A. Those documents, as may appears from the discussions made by the learned trial court, were duly conveying the suit premises to the plaintiffs. For, the issue of title was injected into eviction suit, the learned trial court was going into that issue by taking the over all view of the evidence. It has been pointed out by the learned trial court that the two registered sale deeds bore the L.T.Is. of D.W.4 Savitri Devi who has denied to have ever executed the sale deeds. It was pointed out by the learned trial court that she had been identified by none else than her husband. This appears a probability because Savitri Devi in her evidence has stated in paragraph 32 of her cross examination that whenever she purchased or sold any property she was being accompanied by her husband. Thus, one probability was that her husband could never have identified her as the vendor of the land and execution of the two sale deeds unless she had herself been present at the Registry Office to admit the sale and execution of the documents. 8 Moreover, she claimed in her evidence that she had never executed the sale deeds, but in her cross-examination she has stated that she had not obtained any copy of the documents, specially, the copies of the sale deeds. However, the same were obtained by her son who appears accompanying her to the court room on the day of recording of her evidence, as may appear from paragraph 4 of her cross- examination. But she did not say as to on what date her son obtained the copies of the documents and what were the documents, copies of which were obtained by him. She admitted in paragraph 9 of her evidence that she had got the documents read over to her by her son, but in spite of that she has stated that she did not take any steps for setting aside the sale deeds or for cancellation of the zamabandi which was rendered in favour of the plaintiffs. These appear from paragraphs 20 and 22 of her evidence. In paragraph 26 of her evidence she has stated that she did no know as to what were the number of paragraphs of her affidavit and has further stated that her sons could tell 9 about that. She could not even say as to what statements were contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of her affidavit. It was suggested to her, as such, that she did not know anything about the suit property and had come to depose falsely in the case. 8. Thus, what appears from the evidence of D.W. 4 Savitri Devi is that she might have denied about the execution of the two registered sale deeds but her evidence probailised it that those documents had been executed by her in favour of the plaintiffs. The evidence of denying the execution of Exts. 1 and 1/A rendered by her on affidavit also does not appear coming from her nor could it be said to be within her knowledge. It appears that whatever she had stated in court was simply the words which might have been put in her mouth by the present petitioner Radha Raman, because she has stated that she had many rounds of talks with the present petitioner Radha Raman who had asked her to depose in court in his favour. She has further stated that she did not know anything about the contents of the 10 affidavit and those could be known only by her son. Thus, her evidence appears completely of no value as regards her denial. In the above circumstance, the finding of the learned trial court that the two documents were duly conveying the land to the plaintiffs and that Savitri Devi had executed the same appears a correct finding. 9. As regards the submission of Shri Lalit Kishore on the question of filing of T.S. No. 296 of 2005, it may be pointed out that D.W. 4 Savitri Devi was not taking any steps in spite of the two sale deeds being in existence and she being in know of the fact because she had stated in her evidence that she had not obtained the copies of the documents and contents of those sale deeds had been read over to her. It further appears from the evidence of D.W. 4 Savitri Devi that after execution of the two sale deeds zamabandi had also been created in favour of the plaintiffs and she was duly acquainted with that fact also. The deeds of sale were executed on 19.5.1990 and 23.6.1990. It may be presumed 11 that the zamabandi in favour of the suit premises could have been created subsequent to 23.6.1990. D.W.4 Savitri Devi was being examined in court on 24.8.2007, i.e., after seventeen years of the execution of the sale deeds and probably also after creation of the zamabandi. Till 24.8.2007, she had not, in spite of knowing about those documents, taken any steps for getting the sale deeds and zamabandi annulled through the process of law. She did not ever state in her evidence that the two deeds were forged and fabricated. She simply stated that she had not executed them. It may be said that the deeds could be forged and fabricated documents on the above account but on consideration of the evidence by the learned trial court, which was considered by me also, it is indicated that the probability is on higher side about the execution of the deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit bearing T.S.No.296 of 2005 was filed by the said D.W.4 Savitri Devi, as may appear from the copy of the plaint on 16.11.2005. The Eviction suit was 1 of 2005. However, the evidence of D.W. 4 12 Savitri Devi recorded by the learned Munsif, Begusarai, on 24.8.2007 does not indicate that she had taken any steps for annulment of either of the two sale deeds or for setting aside the zamabandi. Thus, it also appears not within the knowledge of Savitri Devi as she stated in her evidence in paragraph 22 that she might have taken steps for that and she did not know what came out of it. If this could be the situation, then it could be very difficult for the court to consider the subsequent event. 10. This is too well known to be pointed out that subsequent event may be considered by appellant or revision courts, but they should be very cautious in considering them. I have already pointed out the circumstances which make it not safe to act on the subsequent event presently pleaded for setting aside the decree of eviction, due also to the reason that it was not pleaded before the court below. 11. As regards the question of non-payment of the monthly rental or the 13 issue of personal necessitity, those have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs and those were not assailed before this Court. Still, after having upheld the findings of the learned Munsif on sale of the suit premises to the opposite parties by D.W.4, there could be little difficulty in holding that as soon as the premises was transferred to the opposite parties and they came into possession thereof, they were the landlords. The definition of „landlord‟ as contained in Section 2(f) of the Bihar Building( Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 defines the term as sunder: “Landlord”, includes the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of the building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant.” The part of the above definition „who would so receive the rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant‟ is 14 inclusively futuristic. It covers all such prospective persons who could step into the shoes of a landlord at any future point of time due to any situation or change in the existing situation on all aspects of a tenancy. Any person who acquires the property may receive the rent from a tenant and at the same time may be entitled to rent. Admittedly, the petitioner never paid rent to the opposite parties from a particular month and, as such, he rendered himself a defaulter. As such, this Court does not feel it necessary to go into those questions. 12. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Patna High Court The 11th October,2010 Kanth/N.A.F.R. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)