### Transferee landlord's right to evict for personal necessity remains valid despite tenant's pending suit for specific performance.

The plaintiffs (Respondents) purchased a shop premise (approx. 109.25 Sq. ft.) from the original owner, Md. Salauddin, via a registered sale deed dated 17.10.2011

The defendant (Petitioner), an existing tenant, refused to vacate, claiming a prior unregistered Ekrarnama (Agreement to Sell) dated 01.09.2011 executed by the original owner for Rs. 4,25,000/-, and subsequently filed a suit for Specific Performance (Title Suit No. 51 of 2012)

The plaintiffs filed Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2012 under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (BBC Act) on the ground of personal necessity to start a jewelry business

The trial court decreed the eviction, finding a valid landlord-tenant relationship and bona fide personal necessity

The defendant challenged this via Civil Revision, seeking a stay or analogous hearing with the Specific Performance suit

Whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists between the plaintiffs (purchasers) and the defendant despite the absence of formal attornment?

Whether the execution of an Agreement to Sell (Mahadanama) in favor of a tenant automatically terminates the landlord-tenant relationship?

Whether the requirement of "personal necessity" was legally established and if partial eviction was applicable?

The court applied Section 11(1)(c) and Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, regarding eviction for personal necessity and summary procedure

It relied on M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma [AIR 1981 SC 1113], establishing that the registered owner is deemed the landlord for eviction purposes

Following Dinesh Kumar Purbey v. Mahesh Kumar Poddar [(1991) 1 PLJR 650] and Kalawati Tripathi v. Damayanti Devi [(1992) 2 PLJR 214], the court held that attornment is not essential for a transferee to acquire the status of a landlord

Regarding revisional limits, it applied Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78], which restricts High Courts from reappreciating evidence unless the lower court's finding is perverse

The Court observed that the plaintiffs held a valid registered sale deed, whereas the defendant relied on an unregistered agreement to sell which does not confer title

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the agreement to sell terminated the tenancy, noting that title remains with the registered owner until a sale deed is executed.

On personal necessity, the Court found the plaintiffs' requirement for the shop to start a business was bona fide, especially since they were "sitting idle"

It further noted that the defendant failed to plead or prove that "partial eviction" would suffice, and since the shop area was very small (109.25 sq. ft.), partial eviction was practically unfeasible

The Court declined to stay the eviction pending the specific performance suit, emphasizing that summary eviction proceedings under Section 14 of the BBC Act should not be unnecessarily delayed by parallel title litigations

It held that the plaintiffs successfully proved the landlord-tenant relationship by virtue of the registered sale deed and established bona fide personal necessity

The Court vacated the stay on the execution proceedings (Execution Case No. 14 of 2024) and directed the defendant to vacate the premises