RAJENDRA TIWARY versus BASUDEO PRASAD AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 09-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
RAJENDRA TIW ARY 
A 
v. 
BASUDEO PRASAD AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 9, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982--Sections 
2(f) & (h) and 1 l(b), (c) & (d}-Eviction suit-Trial Court and First Appellate 
Court found that relationship of Landlord and tenant did not exist between the 
parties-However, Trial Court held that landlord had title to the suit premises-
Suit dismissed-High Coun remanded the case to the First Appellate Court 
for granting equitable decree under Order Vll Rule 7 of CPC after determin-
ing the title of the landlord-On appeal, held, remand not justified since "relief 
under the Act is dependent on the existence of relationship of landlord and 
tenant and on satisfaction of grounds of eviction, and not on the title of the 
parties. 
Rent Controller-Jurisdiction-Scope of-Held, has limited jurisdiction 
to try suits on the grounds specified in the Special Act and not of the ordinary 
civil court-Hence can not pass decree of eviction on the ground other than 
specified in that special Act. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908--0rder Vll Rule 7--Grant of equitable 
Relief-Scope of-Held the provision permits grant of smaller relief and not 
larger relief than the one claimed in the suit. 
Respondents-plaintiffs filed snit for eviction of appellant-defendant, 
wherein both claim tide to the suit premises. 
Trial Court dismissed the snit on the ground that there was no 
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it held 
that the plaintiff-landlord had title to the suit premises, and that he had 
bona fide requirement for the same. 
The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal but did not go into 
the question of tide of the parties. 
243 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
High Curt allowed the second appeal holding that equitable decree 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
,., 
u 
of eviction could be passed under order VII Rule 7 of CPC against the 
defendant-tenant, on the hasis of title of the plaintiff-landlord and re-
manded the case to the first appellate court in order to record finding on 
the question of title of the parties. 
·--
In appeal to this court appellant contended that provisions of Order 
VII Rule 7 CPC were not attracted to the suit as court was exercising 
limited jurisdiction under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) 
Control Act, 1982 : and that High Court conld not have remitted the case 
to the First Appellate Court because in a suit for eviction under the Act, 
the question of title to the suit premises could not be decided as the same 
Is to be done by Civil Court in its ordinary jurisdiction. Respondent· 
plaintiff contended that once the plaintiffs established their title, an equi-
table decree could be passed, even if the defendant was held not to be the 
tenant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. High Court erred in remanding the case to the first 
appellate court for determination of the title of the parties to the suit 
premises and for granting the decree under Order VII Rule 7 CPC. [251 ·A] 
Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad & Ors., AIR (1951) S.C. 
177 and Bhagwati Prasad v. Oiendramaul, AIR (1966) S.C. 735, distin-
guished. 
2. Inasmuch as both the trial court as well as the first appellate court 
found that the relationship of "landlord and tenant" did not exist between 
the plaintiffs and the defendant, further enquiry into the title of the par-
ties, having regard to the nature of the suit and jurisdiction of the court, 
was unwarranted. In such a case the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 of 
CPC are not attracted. [248-C; 251-A] 
3. The sine qua non for granting the relief in the suit, under the Bihar 
Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is that between the 
plaintiffs and the defendant the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' should 
exist. The scope of the enquiry before the courts was limited to the question 
as to whether the grounds for eviction of the defendant have been made 
H 
out under the Act. The question of title of the parties to the suit premises is 
RAJENDRA TIWARY v. BASUDEO PRASAD [QUADRI, J.] 
245 
not relevant having regard to the width of the definition of the terms 
''landlord" and "tenant'' In clauses (f) and (h), respectively, of Section 2 of 
the Act. [247-H; 248·A·B) 
4. A Court of Rent Controller having limited jurisdiction to try suits 
on grounds specified in the sp

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