JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.02.2018 (decree signed on 24.02.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VI, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 76 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiffs /Opposite Parties has been decreed and defendants / petitioners have been directed to hand over vacant possession of the shop premises to the opposite parties within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiffs / opposite parties are at liberty to evict the defendants / petitioners through process of the Court. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiffs / opposite parties have instituted a suit for eviction under Section 11 (i)(C) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act in the court of learned Munsif at Jamshedpur, being Eviction Suit No. 76 of 1993, praying therein for the following reliefs:- (i) A decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises described in the Schedule to the plaint evicting the defendants therefrom; (ii) A decree for cost of the suit; and (iii) A decree for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled under the law and equity. 4. According to the case of plaintiffs the suit land i.e. Shop was given on rent of Rs. 100/- as a monthly rent by the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 namely, Upendra Mohan Dutta to the defendant /petitioner and after death of Upendra Mohan Dutta, the plaintiffs inherited the shop premises and since plaintiff no. 2 is unemployed, as such, the premises was bonafide required for business for their livelihood. It is further alleged that notice through Advocate was sent to defendants for handing over the possession of the shop on 04.11.1992, but the defendant / petitioner failed to do so, hence, the suit has been preferred. 5. The defendants / petitioners on being noticed appeared and filed their written statement on 26.02.1994, stating, inter alia that the plaintiffs have no cause of action or right to sue against defendants. The suit is not maintainable in its present form for the reliefs as claimed by the plaintiffs. The suit is barred for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. 5. The defendants / petitioners on being noticed appeared and filed their written statement on 26.02.1994, stating, inter alia that the plaintiffs have no cause of action or right to sue against defendants. The suit is not maintainable in its present form for the reliefs as claimed by the plaintiffs. The suit is barred for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The suit does not come within the purview of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed. 6. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties has settled following issues for adjudication:- (i) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is maintainable on facts and law? (ii) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are owner of the suit shop? (iv) Whether the suit is under-valued and this Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit? (v) Are the plaintiffs required suit premises for their reasonable and bonafide use and occupation in connection with business and entitled to evict the defendants from the suit shop? (vi) Whether the partial eviction from the suit shop will fulfill the necessity of the plaintiffs? (vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to evict the defendants on the basis of better ownership to the suit property? (ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other reliefs? 7. In support of respective case, both parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial court after considering the overall evidence available on record recorded the finding that the defendants are tenant of plaintiffs. It was also observed by learned trial court that the real ownership of the suit premises belonged to M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., which was allotted to the plaintiffs and not to the defendants, as such, defendants can’t get any right on account of any sell agreement dated 12.01.1977 (Exhibit-A). The learned trial court also placed reliance upon the principles laid down in the case of Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & Others reported in AIR 1976 SC page 2335 , wherein it has been held that only the landlord can terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Jagannath & Others reported in AIR 1976 SC page 2335 , wherein it has been held that only the landlord can terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The tenant cannot deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the suit premises is a built-up shop premises of M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, which was allotted to one Upendra Mohan Dutta vide Letter of Allotment No. TA/3826 dated 07.03.1955 on condition to pay a security money of Rs. 60/- and rent @ Rs. 20/- per month with other conditions. 9. It is further submitted that in the month of June, 1972, the said allottee Upendra Mohan Dutta took advance of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant and parted with the possession of suit premises with condition to re-pay the above loan amount along with interest @ 7% per annum and since then, the petitioners are running their business over the suit premises. Thereafter, Upendra Mohan Dutta became absolutely incapable to pay the interest amount, therefore, he executed an agreement to sell out the suit premises dated 12.01.1977 in favour of defendants. It is further submitted that the original sole defendant Surendra Kumar Nagelia died and his wife was substituted as present defendant and contested the suit. 10. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration the materials placed by the petitioners in support of their claim. The learned trial court failed to consider that the original allotment in favour of the Upendra Mohan Dutta was issued by M/s Tata Steel Limited under condition that the lessee cannot sub-lease the suit premises, therefore, M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. is also a necessary party for deciding the suit and plaintiff himself had no locus standi to institute the suit for the reliefs as claimed. In the factual background only M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. is entitled to take possession of the suit premises. In the factual background only M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. is entitled to take possession of the suit premises. The learned trial court has also failed to properly consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the defendants / petitioners and arrived at absolutely illegal conclusion while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs / opposite parties has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly examined the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and rightly held that the plaintiffs are landlord of the suit premises and defendants are tenants. Exhibit-A i.e. Sale deed produced by the defendants is not a valid and admissible document. The learned trial court has also rightly recorded the finding that the tenant can’t go behind the ownership and title of the leasehold property and estopped under statute to raise such objection. 12. It is further contended that during pendency of the instant revision, the suit shop premises has been delivered to the landlord / plaintiffs through the process of court and now no article of tenant is lying in the shop premises. 13. Learned counsel has also filed possession receipt issued under the signature and seal of the Nazir, Civil Court, Jamshedpur in Execution Case No. 125 of 2018 dated 01.05.2023. Therefore, there remains nothing to be restored to the petitioners / defendants and this revision has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed. 14. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the both parties. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners hinges the question of locus standi to institute the suit. As per the petitioners, the owner-cum-landlord is M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. and the predecessor of plaintiffs was an allottee of the suit shop through Allotment Letter No. TA/3826 dated 07.03.1955. As per terms and conditions of the said allotment, the allottee can’t sub-let the suit premises to any person, therefore, the very sub-letting of the suit premises to the defendant / petitioners was a void agreement, therefore, the defendants are not entitled to recover back the possession of the suit shop from the plaintiffs. 15. The above plea taken by the petitioner does not appear to be justified under law. 15. The above plea taken by the petitioner does not appear to be justified under law. It is settled principle of law that a person inducted as a tenant over the suit premises is estopped from denying the ownership / right of the landlord to let out the leasehold premises. It is admitted case of the defendants that he got possession of the suit property from original allottee Upendra Mohan Dutta, therefore, the defendants have no independent right over the suit land except as inducting them as a tenant over the suit shop. A tenant is always a tenant unless otherwise is proved. Therefore, the defendants can’t raise such type of plea against the locus standi of the plaintiffs to institute the suit. 16. It also appears that during pendency of the revision, Execution Case No. 125 of 2018 was filed by the plaintiffs to get the fruits of their decree, which has also been allowed and the defendants / petitioners have been evicted from the suit premises. 17. In this view of the matter also there remains nothing to be decided challenging the impugned judgment and decree. 18. For the discussion and reasons, I find no merit in this Civil Revision, which stand dismissed. 19. Pending I.A, if any stands disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned.