BELA DAS & ORS. versus SAMARENDRA NATH BOSE

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 1004 · Decided: 11-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1004 
BELA DAS & ORS. 
v. 
SAMARENDRA NATH BOSE 
December 11, 1974 
[K. K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWAT! AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.) 
A 
J.a111llord cmd tena111-S11it for evic1io11-Tena111s p/;ea that landlord alone 
B 
couhi 1io1 ma/main suit as there were other co-share.rs-Striking out defence 
011 the ground of 1wn-pnyme11t of a/'l'ears--Whether tenant could contest <m 
basis of title. 
The respondent was tenant of certain premises. As a result of a decr1:e 
in a partition suit the premises fell to the share of the appellants and 
th1:y 
tiled a suit for eviction. 
They also applied under s. llA of the Bihar lluildings 
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, for payment 
ot urrears 
•Jf 
rent, and the Court directed the respondents L'O pay into court the arrears 
C 
and futuie rent. The respondent did not comply with 
the .order 
and 
his 
defen.;e !o the eviction suit was struck out. Thereafter. an cx-parte dccr.ee 
evicting 1h~ respondent was passed and it was confirmed by the first appellate 
Court. In second appeal, the High Court remitted the case to the trial Court 
on the ground l:ha:t since the respondent had not admitted the appellants to be 
lull owners of the premises but contended that other co-sharers of the appd-
lant's family had also shares therein, ther(: was a denial of the relationship 
of landlo ·ct and tenant between the pa·rties and so the order striking out the 
D' 
respond·~nt's defence qua t,nant did not prevent him from contesting the suit 
on the question of title. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD·. The respondent had admitted that he was tenant under the appd-
lants and h"'1 paid rent to the appellants recognising them as his landlorcls. 
It was not therefore a case of denial ·of relationship of land lord and tenant 
betwe~n the parties. 
Hi-3 plea was only that the appella·nts being landlords 
of a share of the p;emises cou,ld not by themselves claim a decree of evktion 
E 
against him. 
Such a plea was a plea qua tenant and not ctehors it. The 
striking out ·of his defence had thµs, the effe,:t of striking out all the defences 
raised by the respondent qua tenant including his <lefonce that the appellants 
being co-sharer landlords were not entitled to maintain the suit for evictic1n. 
f!006 C-F] 
• 
Mahabir Ram v. Shiva Shanker Prasad and Ors. A.LR. 1968 Patna 415 
referred to. 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 425 of 1970. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment & decree dated the 
17th September, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appel-
late decree No. 262 of 1969. 
· 
Purshottam Chatterjee and H. K. Puri, for the appellants. 
R. B. Dutar and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J.-This appeal by the plaintiffs filed by special leave 
of this Court against the defendant respondent arises out of a suit for 
eviction instituted by the former against the latter from the suit pre-
mises situated in the town of Patna. According to the- case of the 
plaintiffs 
the: 
defendant 
had 
been 
inducted 
as 
a 
monthly 
tenant of the premises on a rent of Rs. 135/- per month. Subsequent-
ly, as a result of a decree in a Parititon Suit between the plaintiffs and 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
llELA OAS v. SAMARENDRA NATH (Untwalia J.) 
l 005 
their co-sharers the property was allc'ted to the former and they be-
came the absolute owners thereof. Plaintiffs wanted to evict the / 
defendant on the ground of non-payment of rent, breach of the condi• 
tions of the tenency and on account .of their bonafide personal require-
ments of the suit premises. The defendant in his defence took the 
plea that he was not the tenant of ilhe premises, the tenant was Liberty 
iX Co. and that the plaintiffs were not. the absolute owners thereof, as 
the decree for partition had been set aside in a first appeal filed in the 
Pama High Court, there were others who also were the landlords. 
Some other pleas were 11lso raised to resist the suit for eviction. 
· 
. · The suit was instituted on 27-19-1962. On 18•12~1963 the plaintiffs 
filed a petition under section 1 lA of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent 
and Eviction) Control Act, 1947-hereinafter called the Act-for 
directing the defendant to pay the arears of rent as also the current and 
future rent. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiffs under 
section l lA of the Act on the ground that besides thein there were 
other landlords of the building in question. But an order under s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.