PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGMENT ON SOHAIL KHAN AND ORS. V/S JUNAID EQBAL KHAN AND ANR.

PATNA, India, April 13 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on March 11:

1. Heard Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Manan Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendantsappellants-appellants against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 18th August, 2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Title Appeal No. 06/02 of 2002/2008. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1997 filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent. The plaintiffs also sought relief for directing the defendants to vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession to them as well as for payment of arrears of rent. The defendants contested the claim by denying the title of plaintiffs and further denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

3. The eviction suit was decreed by the learned 1st Munsif, Sasaram, vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2001 passed in Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1997, which was thereafter challenged by the defendants by preferring Title Appeal No. 06/02 of 2002/2008. Upon hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Rohtas at Sasaram vide judgment and decree dated 18th August 2008, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. However, earlier, in first round of litigation, in Title Appeal No. 06/02 of 2002/2008, the learned Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2001, by which Eviction Suit No. 03 of 1997 was decreed and remanded the matter back to the trial court namely, learned 1st Munsif, Sasaram, for deciding the regular Title Suit on amendment of plaint including the relief. The plaintiffsrespondents had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 356 of 2006 in this Court which was allowed by a Bench of this Court on 03.01.2008 and the judgment of Appellate Court was set aside. The High Court also directed the Appellate Court to consider the Title Appeal afresh and further observed that the learned lower Appellate Court is required to consider the main question in issue namely, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the question of title had to be gone into merely incidentally. The plaintiffs are dominus litis and the Court has no business to force the plaintiffs to amend its pleadings or reliefs. The Court can only decide the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of pleadings of the parties. If the Court does not find any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, for which the question of title has to be gone into incidentally, the Court below can very well reject the claim of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, merely on the ground that the defendants had denied the title of the plaintiffs and had claimed their own title over the suit premises, the learned Appellate Court below cannot be held to be legally justified in directing that the eviction suit should be converted into regular Title Suit for declaration of title.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/OSMzMTUjMjAwOCMxI04=-O1PUN4ALI--ak1--4=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.