In the plaint, it was averred that appellant No.1 and her husband were influenced by the claim of respondent No.2 that he possessed spiritual powers and will bring peace in their family and, therefore, allowed him to occupy a portion of the house at a monthly rent of Rs.190/ .
In the appeal preferred by respondent No.1, the High Court framed as many as seven questions including the following Whether the defendants had ever handed over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff as part performance of the companytract.
6471/2008 filed by him was dismissed by this Court on 12th August, 2009.
It was further averred that Syed Mohammed Jalaluddin was going to retire from service very soon and he was desirous of living in his own house.
The High Court numbered that as per respondent No.1, he was living in the house in his own right, i.e., on the basis of the agreement for sale and that the appeal filed by him against dismissal of the title suit was pending and held that during pendency of the appeal filed against dismissal of the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale, respondent No.1 cannot be treated as a tenant of the suit premises.
Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned companynsel for the appellants pointed out that First Appeal No.
Thereafter, agreement mahadanama dated 9.1.1982 was executed between appellant No.1, her husband and respondent No.1 and the latter was given possession of the house.
Appeal preferred by respondent No.2 against the decree of eviction was dismissed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Motihari, who companyfirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court that need of the landlords was bonafide.
Civil Revision No.395/1998 filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court by observing that even though Section 12 of the Bihar Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 for short, the Act has overriding effect qua the provisions of other enactments, the same cannot be invoked against a person who is number a tenant within the meaning of Section 2 h of the Act.
Whether the alleged Mahadanama is enforceable in law and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of companytract?
He pleaded that decree cannot be executed against him because the trial Court had ordered eviction of respondent No.2 only and also because First Appeal No.33/1989 filed by him against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the suit for specific performance was pending before the High Court.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed 12 issues, including the following Whether the alleged Mahadanama dated 9.1.1982 valid, legal and admissible document and can be basis of any suit?
Respondent No.1, who had already filed Title Suit No.76/1983 renumbered as 196/1987 for specific performance of the agreement, got himself impleaded as intervenor defendant in the eviction suit and filed written statement supporting the case set up by respondent No.2.
The appellate judgment became final because respondent No.2 did number challenge the same by filing second appeal.
Respondent No.2 further pleaded that Syed Mohammed Jalaluddin requested him to find out some purchaser and after some talks, the sale of house was finalized with respondent No.1, Mohammed Hussain.
The ground of default was elaborated by stating that respondent No.2 did number pay rent for the period from January, 1981 to December, 1983.
On numberice, respondent No.1 filed objection petition under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
After dismissal of the appeal filed by respondent No.2 against the decree of eviction, the appellants filed an application for execution thereof impleading the respondents herein as parties.
33/1989 filed by respondent No.1 against the decree passed by the trial Court in the title suit was dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 18.5.2007 and Special Leave Petition C No.
He claimed that he never occupied the house belonging to appellant No.1 and her husband or any portion thereof as a tenant.
While admitting that he possessed spiritual power, respondent No.2 pleaded that appellant No.1 and her husband sought his blessings and they were immensely benefited by his association.
Whether plaintiff of T.S. No.76/1983 was put in possession of the suit house by defendant Syed Md. Jalaluddin?
Respondent No.2 also made a mention of the suit filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of the agreement for sale.
The title suit filed by respondent No.1 and the eviction suit filed by appellant No.1 and her husband were clubbed because the subject matter of both the suits was companymon.
The trial Court held that the so called agreement mahadanama dated 9.1.1982 is number a legally admissible document and the same cannot be made basis for passing a decree for specific performance.
According to respondent No.2, appellant No.1 and her husband felt that their house was haunted by evil spirits who killed their two sons and requested him with folded hands to use his spiritual power to drive away the evil spirits and, therefore, he agreed to occupy one room in the year 1978.
The Executing Court referred to the evidence produced by the parties and held that the judgment debtor left the room and the applicant is residing in the suit house along with his family.
In the eviction suit, the trial Court returned the finding that respondent No.2 was tenant in the suit premises and the same was required by the landlords for their personal and bonafide need.
In the written statement filed by him, respondent No.2 denied the very existence of the landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
By an order dated 28th November, 1997, the Executing Court allowed the objection petition and dismissed the execution application by observing that the decree of eviction was passed only against respondent No.2 and number against the objector.
After detailed analysis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them, the trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and decreed the one filed for eviction of respondent No.2.
The trial Court further held that the plaintiff of Title Suit No.76/1983 was number put in possession of the suit house by Syed Mohammed Jalaluddin.
Appellant No.1, Bibi Zafira Khatoon and her husband Syed Mohammed Jalaluddin since deceased filed suit for eviction of respondent No.2, Mohammed Manzurool Haque from a portion of their residential house situated at Motihari on the grounds of personal and bonafide necessity and default in payment of rent.
S. Singhvi, J. This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 31.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court whereby he dismissed the civil revision preferred by the appellants against dismissal of the application filed by them for execution of the decree of eviction.
