Jitendra Prasad v. Nawal Prasad And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6253 of 2016 ====================================================== Jitendra Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Nawal Prasad & Anr .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parmanand Pd. Nr. Sahi For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 27-07-2016 Heard learned counsel Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh for the petitioner.

Perused the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by Munsif, Lakhisarai in Title Eviction Suit No.01 of 2012 whereby the learned court below rejected the intervention application filed by the petitioner. Eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against defendant-respondent under B.B.C. Act. This petitioner filed application for being added party on the ground that he is one of the sons of tenant-defendant and that he is a co-sharer and the suit property is joint family property. The court below by the impugned order has rejected the application on the ground that in eviction suit the question of title cannot be gone into. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 136 (Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad and Another) has held that it is evident while dealing with the suit of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6253 of 2016 (2) dt.27-07-2016 plaintiffs for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises under Section 11 of the B.B.C. Act, Courts including the High Court exercises jurisdiction under a special enactment. The sine qua non for granting the relief in the suit, under the Act, is that between the plaintiffs and 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 out under the Act. The question of title of the parties to the suit premises is not relevant. In view of the above fact that the petitioner is claiming title on the ground that he is co-sharer or that son of tenant, which cannot be decided in eviction suit and for deciding the question as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, the presence of this petitioner is not at all necessary. Thus, this writ application has got no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U