Clarifies that an agreement of sale, when void ab initio for government leasehold (Khas Mahal) property, does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship; eviction and arrears of rent can be decreed on default. Upholds existing Supreme Court and statutory interpretations that, in rent control proceedings, landlord’s title is not examined beyond the landlord-tenant nexus. Binding precedent for eviction matters under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, especially involving government leasehold properties.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/87/2025 of SARWAR MIRZA Vs M.H. KHUZAIMA |
| CNR | JHHC010405922024 |
| Date of Registration | 24-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent on Jharkhand subordinate courts (see below) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial and appellate court decrees dismissing defendants’ appeals |
| Type of Law | Rent Control / Tenancy / Property Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a void agreement of sale for Khas Mahal property ends the landlord-tenant relationship and precludes eviction for rent default. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The original suit sought eviction for default in rent and arrears from tenants (defendants) of government leasehold premises. The defendants, after entering into a void agreement of sale with the plaintiff (not the leaseholder), ceased paying rent claiming purchaser status. They lost separate litigation for specific performance. Both trial and first appellate courts found for the plaintiff landlord, holding tenancy continued and default made out. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand dealing with eviction and tenancy/rent matters |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially those interpreting similar State tenancy statutes and Khas Mahal property |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | R. Kanthimathi and Another vs. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.) on the basis that here, the agreement of sale was void ab initio. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- An agreement of sale relating to non-transferable government leasehold (Khas Mahal) property, being void ab initio, does not sever the landlord-tenant relationship for eviction under tenancy control statutes.
- Default in rent even after such a void agreement is actionable; eviction and arrears can be decreed based solely on admitted tenancy and default.
- Reference to Supreme Court’s R. Kanthimathi decision will not aid tenants where the agreement of sale itself was void at inception due to incapacity of the so-called landlord to transfer title.
- Landlord’s title is not adjudicated in depth in proceedings under the BBC Act; the focus is on the existence of landlord-tenant relationship and fulfillment of default or personal necessity conditions.
- Pleas challenging landlord’s proprietary title (where tenancy is admitted and not repudiated by law) are not sustainable as against eviction claims under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court analyzed the purported change of status (tenant to purchaser) arising from an agreement of sale for government leasehold property (“Khas Mahal”) and rejected it as the plaintiff had no right to transfer such property, rendering the agreement void ab initio.
- The court distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court’s R. Kanthimathi precedent, emphasizing that only a valid agreement of sale could dissolve the earlier landlord-tenant relationship; a void agreement has no such effect.
- The court reaffirmed the principle that, under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, the landlord’s substantive title need not be adjudicated—only the existence of landlord-tenant relationship and default or necessity is relevant.
- Estoppel (Section 116 Evidence Act) bars tenants from denying the landlord’s status during existence of tenancy, especially after having admitted tenancy and default.
- Non-payment of rent after an unenforceable/void agreement of sale does not defeat the landlord’s right of eviction or claim for arrears under the Act.
- The scope of scrutiny in rent control proceedings remains limited to the statutory conditions for eviction; complex title disputes fall outside its remit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed that the agreement of sale dated 13.11.1997 transformed their status from tenant to purchaser and severed the landlord-tenant relationship after that date.
- Asserted that plaintiff was not owner—property was Khas Mahal land (government lease) and plaintiff had no title, so could not legally lease or sell.
- Cited R. Kanthimathi and Another vs. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.), contending that execution of agreement of sale extinguished tenancy regardless of its fate.
- Maintained that they stopped paying rent post-agreement as tenancy had ended.
Respondent
- Argued the agreement of sale was void ab initio since plaintiff was not the legal owner of the government leasehold (Khas Mahal) property.
- Asserted continued existence of landlord-tenant relationship due to admitted tenancy, non-payment of rent, and non-adjudication of substantive title in rent proceedings.
- Emphasized the bar on in-depth title scrutiny in proceedings under the BBC Act.
- Stated that the need for the premises was bona fide and proved.
Factual Background
The dispute arose over government leasehold (Khas Mahal) property wherein the defendants were inducted as tenants in 1996. Subsequently, an agreement of sale was executed in 1997, for which substantial payment was made, but the remaining amount was unpaid and registration did not take place. The property was not capable of legal transfer since the plaintiff was not the government leaseholder. The defendants defaulted in paying rent after the agreement, claiming status as purchasers. The plaintiff issued legal notice and then filed the present eviction suit for rent default and personal necessity. The defendants, in parallel, filed and lost a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 11 (1)(d) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982: Eviction allowed for consistent default in rent payment or bona fide personal necessity; title of landlord need not be examined beyond relationship of landlord and tenant.
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act: Mere agreement for sale does not create title, interest, or change in property status.
- Section 116, Indian Evidence Act: Bars tenants from challenging landlord’s title during the continuance of tenancy except under legally permissible circumstances.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural norms or guidelines were set out in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – This decision upholds and clarifies existing Supreme Court and statutory precedent on the effect (or lack thereof) of void agreements of sale on the landlord-tenant relationship in eviction proceedings involving government leasehold properties.