Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

KODURI LAKSHMI PRAHARSHITHA

2017038

Vth SEMESTER

CASE NAME: BISWANATH AGARALLA V. SABITRI BERA

BENCH: S.B. SINHA, DEEPAK VERMA

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLENTS:

The counsel contended that a finding of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine
qua non for passing a decree for eviction against a tenant .the specific relationship as such needs
to be established and proved before the court of law in order to avail the decree of eviction .
Further, that the defendant in a suit for ejectment was bound to show that he had a right to
remain on a land permanently wherefore the onus would be on him. Therefore the relationship of
landlord and tenant and/or the licensor and licensee having not been proved, the High Court as
also the First Appellate Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment on
the premise that the appellant was a trespasser.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

It was argued that the landlord in a given case although may not be able to prove the relationship
of landlord and tenant, but in the event he proves his general title, may obtain a decree on the
basis thereof. Therefore the counsel while relying on various judgments contended that the
landlord is entitled to obtain a decree of eviction on the basis of his general title, though he could
not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant.

The counsel contended that in a case like the present a decree for ejectment can be passed in
favour of the plaintiff, though the specific case of tenancy set up by him is not proved i.e, where
the plaintiff asks for the ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant is a tenant
of the premises, a decree for ejectment can be passed even though tenancy is not proved,
provided it is established that the possession of the defendant is that of a licensee.

REFERRED CASES:

 Radha Devi and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sinha [1998 (2) BLJR 1061]
 Champa Lal Sharma v. Smt. Sunita Maitra [(1990) 1 BLJR 268],
 Deepak Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Ram Swarup Singh [1992 (1) BLJR 102]
 Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly and Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 85]
 Bhagwati Prasad v. Shri Chandramaul [(1966) 2 SCR 286]
 Abdul Ghani v. Musammat Babni [I.L.R. 25 All. 256]
 Balmakund v. Dalu [I.L.R. 25 All. 498]
 Bhagwati Pd. v. Chandramaul [AIR 1966 SC 735]
 Hajee Golam Hossain Ostagar vs. Sheik Abu Bakkar [AIR 1936 Calcutta 351]

 In Dharam Singh vs. Karnail Singh & Ors. [(2008) 9 SCC 759]
 Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam (D) through LRs. v. Pamarti Venkayamma [(2009) 4 SCC
244]

Оценить