1961 (3) TMI 134 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act to a sub-lease.
2. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants.
3. Bar of Section 18 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.
4. Defendants' claim of acquiring permanent tenancy rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act to a sub-lease:

The primary issue was whether the applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act to a sub-lease should be determined based on the purpose for which the sub-lease is created or the nature of the original tenancy. The court overruled previous decisions (AIR 1942 Pat 71 and AIR 1949 Pat 444) and concluded that the applicability of these Acts must be decided based on the purpose of the sub-lease. The court emphasized that Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act explicitly states that Chapter V does not apply to leases for agricultural purposes, implying that non-agricultural sub-leases should be governed by the Transfer of Property Act, irrespective of the original tenancy being agricultural.

2. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants:

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were allowed to live on the disputed land as licensees and later as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 8/-. The defendants contended that they had an oral settlement and later an unregistered parwangi, claiming permanent settlement rights. The court found that the defendants were not licensees but statutory tenants and that the original tenancy was agricultural, governed by the Bihar Tenancy Act. However, since the sub-lease was for residential purposes, the Transfer of Property Act applied, making the defendants' claim of permanent settlement invalid without a registered lease.

3. Bar of Section 18 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act:

The defendants argued that Section 18 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act barred the suit. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the Act does not apply to cases where only land, not buildings, is let out. Moreover, the defendants had previously denied the jurisdiction of the House Controller, making their plea inconsistent.

4. Defendants' claim of acquiring permanent tenancy rights:

The defendants claimed to have acquired permanent tenancy rights by being in possession for about fifteen or sixteen years. The court rejected this claim, noting that the defendants admitted to a landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiffs' predecessors. As there was no valid lease, the tenancy duration must be determined by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court held that the defendants did not acquire any permanent tenancy rights and were liable to be evicted.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge were set aside, and the suit was decreed with costs. The court concluded that the applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act to a sub-lease must be based on the purpose of the sub-lease, not the nature of the original tenancy. The defendants' claims of permanent tenancy and the bar under Section 18 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act were dismissed, leading to their eviction.