Patna High Court
Pramod Kumar Jalan vs Smt. Anita Devi on 17 June, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.84 of 2024
======================================================
1. Pramod Kumar Jalan Son of Late Murari Jalan @ Murarilal Jalan Resident
of Mohalla-Sudamajeet Market, Bari Path, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distirct-Patna. At
Present R/o Mohalla-Bakerganj, Nageshwar Colony, Arya Kumar Road,
P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna.
2. Ajay Kumar Jalan Son of Late Murari Jalan @ Murarilal Jalan Resident of
Mohalla-Sudamajeet Market, Bari Path, P.S.- Pirbahore, Distirct-Patna. At
Present R/o Mohalla-Bakerganj, Nageshwar Colony, Arya Kumar Road,
P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Smt. Anita Devi Wife of Arun Kumar Resident of Mohalla-Birla Mandir
Road, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna.
2. Bhola Prasad Son of Late Jittu Sao Resident of Mohalla-Birla Mandir Road,
P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-06-2025
The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed
for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by learned
Munsif-I, Patna Sadar in Eviction Suit No. 23 of 2011, whereby
and whereunder the learned trial court has rejected the
amendment petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') by the
defendants/petitioners.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
2/17
property is holding No. 137 of Patna City appertaining to Plot
Nos. 818, 819 and 820 having area of 1274 Sq. feet situated at
Mohalla Bakerganj, P.S. Pirbahore, District - Patna. The said
land originally belonged to one Sudama Prasad Singh and old
municipal survey khatiyan with respect to the entire holding No.
137 stood prepared in the name of Sudama Prasad Singh.
Sudama Prasad Singh had one son, namely Ajit Kumar Singh
and Ajit Kumar Singh had five children, namely Tribhuwan
Kumar Singh, Madandhari Sharma, Ashok Kumar Singh,
Kumkum Devi and Rani Sinha. Sudama Prasad Singh and Ajit
Kumar Singh died leaving behind all their heirs in jointness. It
transpires that a double storied building has been constructed on
holding No. 137 having five shops on ground floor and three
shops on first floor. The petitioners claim to be occupying one
shop of about 255 Sq. feet at ground floor and another shop of
same area at first floor since 1996 under the tenancy of heirs of
Ajit Kumar Singh jointly. The plaintiffs/respondents have also
been occupying two shops at ground floor having area of about
600 Sq. feet and also occupying one shop at first floor having
area of about 150 Sq. feet prior to 1990 under the tenancy of
joint family of Ajit Kumr Singh. Now Ashok Kumar Singh died
leaving behind one son Prince Kumar and two daughters,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
3/17
namely Beuty Kumari and Sweeti Kumari. Madandhari Sharma
has three sons, namely Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and
Rishikesh Kumar. Tribhuwan Kumar Singh died leaving behind
two sons and a daughter, namely Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Kumar
and Poonam Kumari. Further, Mukesh Kumar has two sons,
namely Abhishek Ranjan and Amritesh Ranjan whereas Sanjay
Kumar has four daughters, namely Shikha Kumari, Neha
Kumari, Sneha Kumari and Anisha Kumari.
3. The plaintiffs/respondents purchased part of the
holding through three sale deeds. First sale deed was executed
by Prince Kumar vide Deed No. 11390 on 23.06.2008, second
sale deed was executed on the same day by Madandhari Sharma
and Rakesh Kumar vide Deed No. 11391 and third sale deed
was executed by Manju Devi and Manoj Kumar vide Deed No.
16485 on 13.06.2011. The plaintiffs claimed that in this manner
plaintiffs/respondents purchased only 4/15th share while they
have already been occupying 6/15th share which is greater than
their purchased area. After execution of two sale deeds both
dated 23.06.2008, the plaintiffs filed Eviction Suit No. 23 of
2011 against the petitioners for their eviction from the shop on
the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity.
The defendants/petitioners appeared and filed their written
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
4/17
statement denying the landlord and tenant relationship and it has
also been submitted in the written statement that a Title Partition
Suit No. 232 of 2011 was already filed by Rani Sinha and Sikha
Kumari impleading all the heirs of Ajit Kumar Singh for
partition of their share in the present suit property. During the
pendency of the eviction suit, the defendants/petitioners also
purchased 1/5th share of Rani Sinha by way of sale deed No.
277/17 dated 20.10.2012. The defendants/petitioners also filed a
petition on 26.11.2012 seeking amendment in the written
statement that by virtue of purchase of share of Rani Sinha
defendants have become co-sharers. The learned trial court vide
order dated 17.07.2013 allowed the amendment petition of the
defendants and rejected the petition dated 10.04.2012 of the
plaintiffs/respondents under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings
(Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (in short 'the BBC Act')
seeking direction to the defendants to pay the arrears of rent.
The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order 17.07.2013 passed
by learned trial court, preferred C.W.J.C. No. 20819 of 2013
which was allowed in terms of the impugned order dated
19.09.2017
. The petitioners/defendants then filed Civil Review
No. 198 of 2023 against the said order dated 19.09.2017 and the
same is pending consideration before this Court. Meanwhile,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
5/17
one Title Suit No. 60 of 2009 was filed by one of the plaintiffs,
namely Bhola Prasad, against the heirs in branch of late
Tribhuwan Kumar Singh and Madandhari Sharma with the relief
of specific performance of contract in respect of holding in
question. During pendency of this suit, Manoj Kumar Son of
late Tribhuwan Kumar Singh, sold his share in favour of Bhola
Prasad. However, the suit was decided on merits with respect to
liability of other persons and the learned Sub Judge-II, Patna
decided the suit on 09.08.2017 in favour of Sanjay Kumar and
other defendants holding that there has not been previous
partition amongst the heirs of Ajit Kumar Singh and the plaintiff
Bhola Prasad was not entitled to decree of specific performance
of contract. The defendants/petitioners came to know about the
judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 60 of 2009
in the month of August, 2022 after getting the copy of the same
from Sanjay Kumar Singh who has also filed Eviction Suit No.
75 of 2022 against Bhola Prasad for his eviction from 220 Sq.
feet of present holding and the said suit is also pending
consideration. In the light of subsequent developments, the
defendants/petitioners filed an amendment petition on
04.10.2023 bringing on record the developments which took
place during pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs/respondents
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
6/17
filed rejoinder on 31.10.2023. However, the amendment
application of the petitioners was rejected by the learned trial
court in terms of order dated 08.01.2024. The said order is under
challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the impugned order is not sustainable as the learned trial court
utterly failed to consider the fact that the petitioners have been
trying to bring on record the subsequent development which
they came to know recently. Learned trial court did not
appreciate the fact that allowing the amendment with regard to
subsequent development would not change the nature of the
suit. Learned trial court has erroneously rejected the application
for amendment holding that the amendment is not going to
decide the real question in controversy. Learned trial court has
failed to take into consideration the submission of the
petitioners that from the very beginning they are claiming that
there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiffs and the defendants and the plaintiffs are not the
owners of the premises in question. Learned trial court
proceeded on a piori assumption that the facts sought to be
brought through amendment are not relevant to the issue
involved in the suit. Therefore, it was too early for the learned
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
7/17
trial court to hold that the amendment was not going to decide
the real question in controversy. Amendment sought was not for
any subsequent relief but only to bring the record the subsequent
development with respect to the suit property between the
parties and the same needs to be allowed even if nature of the
suit changes. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the impugned
order needs to be set aside by this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents vehemently contended that there is no merit in the
present civil miscellaneous petition and the same is fit to be
dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted at the
outset that earlier the same petitioners filed an application for
amendment that they are the co-sharers after purchasing the
property by way of sale deed dated 20.10.2012 from Rani Sinha.
The learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 20819 of
2013 and 21247 of 2023 vide order dated 19.09.2017
unequivocally held that the question of title of the parties of the
suit premises is not relevant having regard to the width of the
definition of the terms ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ in clauses (f) and
(h) of Section 2 of the BBC Act and the court while deciding
eviction suit cannot decide the question of title. Failing in their
earlier attempt, the petitioners have again come up with another
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
8/17
plea with regard to disposal of Title Suit No. 60 of 2009. which
has no relevance at all for the purpose of determination of real
controversy between the parties. Moreover, in the said
judgment, no new rights have been conferred upon the
petitioners. The said suit was filed for specific performance of
contract and all the defendants except one executed sale deeds
in favour of the respondent Bhola Prasad, the learned trial court
recorded a finding that the plaintiff was not entitled for specific
performance of contract against defendant no. 2 Sanjay Kumar.
Further, the suit property was also different. In the present case,
the learned trial court is required to examine whether there
exists any landlord tenant relationship between the parties and
whether any of the grounds seeking amendment is established or
not. Claim of the respondents is based on registered sale deed
and it is not contingent upon any agreement to sale being
executed. Admittedly, the petitioners were tenants of the
vendors of the respondents and when the sale deed was
executed, the petitioners were in possession of the suit property
in their capacity as tenant. Therefore, by operation of law, the
petitioners became the tenants of the respondents irrespective of
the fact that whether they atorned the plaintiffs/respondents as
landlord or not. Moreover, the sale deeds have never been
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
9/17
challenged. Learned counsel further submitted that even the
vendor of the petitioners, namely Rani Sinha is also signatory
on partition deed and no co-sharer has supported the case of the
petitioners and none of them challenged the deeds executed in
favour of the respondents. Learned counsel further submitted
that the eviction suit was filed in the year 2011 and the
defendants have avoided the disposal of the suit for almost 14
years. It is only a delaying tactics of the petitioners. Learned
counsel further submitted that no subsequent events had taken
place in respect of suit property and it is obvious that the present
suit has been filed in the year 2011 on the basis of sale deeds
executed in the year 2008. But the amendment sought is totally
irrelevant, absurd and malafide. By seeking the amendment, the
petitioners want to challenge the title of the respondents without
any locus standi and the same could not be allowed.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied
on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad and Another, reported in
AIR 2002 SC 136 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties is sine qua non for granting relief and question of title of
the parties to the suit premises is not relevant and is beyond the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
10/17
scope of court exercising jurisdiction under the Act. Learned
counsel next referred to the decision of T. Lakshmipathi & Ors
Vs P. Nithyananda Reddy & Ors, reported in AIR 2003 SC
2427 and in paragraph 24 of the said case the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that as under:-
“24. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, no defence or shelter is available to the
appellants behind the plea that they have
acquired interest of some of the co-owners.
The law as to co-owners is well settled.
Where any property is held by several co-
owners, each co-owner has interest in every
inch of the common property, but his interest
is qualified and limited by similar interest of
the other owners. One co-owner cannot take
exclusive possession of the property nor
commit an act of waste, ouster or
illegitimate use, and he does so he may be
restrained by an injunction. A co-owners
may, by an arrangement, expressed or
implied, with his other co-owners, possess
and enjoy any property exclusively. Such a
co-owner can also protect his possession
against the other co-owners and if he is
dispossesed by the latter, he can recover
exclusive possession. (see Jahuri Sah v.
Dwarika Prasad Jhunjhunwala (1966) Supp
SCR 280). It is beyond any controversy that
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
11/17on the death of late P. Narayan Reddy, his
rights devolved upon the several heirs
including respondent No. 1. The respondent
No. 1 is the only male person in the body of
the co-owners, all others being women. It
may be for this reason, or otherwise, that the
respondent No. 1 was in possession of the
property, through tenants, realizing the rent
peacefully and with the consent, expressed
or implied, of other co-heirs of late P.
Nithyananda Reddy. So far as the
respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, by
operation of S. 116 of the Evidence Act, they
were estopped from challenging or denying
the ownership of the respondent No. 1 and
his rights in the tenancy premises. As held in
Vasudeo v. Balkishan, (2002) 2 SCC 50, the
rule of estoppel between landlord and tenant
continues to operate so long as the tenancy
continues and unless the tenant has
surrendered possession to the landlord. The
estoppel would cease to operate only on the
tenant openly restoring possession by
surrender to the landlord. Neither the
respondents Nos. 2 and 3 nor their
successors in interest or the persons
claiming under could have denied the title of
the respondent No. 1 during the continuance
of the tenancy and even thereafter unless
they had restored possession over the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
12/17tenancy premises to the respondent No. 1.
Looking at the status of the appellants
whether as co-owners or as persons
inducted in possession by the tenants they
have no legs to stand on. If other co-owners
could not have dispossessed the respondent
No. 1 or demolished the property without the
consent of respondent No. 1 it is difficult to
conceive how their transferees could have
demolished the tenancy premises and raised
their own construction over the land on
which the tenancy premises stood earlier.”
7. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners
were admittedly the tenants of heirs of Ajit Kumar Singh and
the respondents became landlord after purchase of the right, title
and interest from these co-sharers who are all male members
and it has not been in dispute that they were in possession.
Lastly, learned counsel referred to the decision of M/s.
Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs M/s. Narayanaswamy &
Sons & Ors, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6644 in support of his
contention that the amendments are not at all necessary for
proper adjudication of the case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 67 came up with basic principles for
allowing or rejecting the application for amendment which reads
as under:-
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
13/17“67. On critically analyzing both the English
and Indian cases, some basic principles
emerge which ought to be taken into
consideration while allowing or rejecting the
application for amendment.
(1) Whether the amendment sought is
imperative for proper and effective
adjudication of the case?
(2) Whether the application for amendment
is bona fide or mala fide?
(3) The amendment sought not cause such
prejudice to the other side which cannot be
compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead
to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
(5) Whether the proposed amendment
constitutionally or fundamentally changes
the nature and character of the case? And(6) As a general rule, the court should
decline amendments if a fresh suit on the
amended claims would be barred by
limitation on the date of application.”
Thus, learned counsel submitted that the impugned
order does not need any interference from this Court.
8. By way of reply learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the respondents themselves were tenants earlier
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
14/17
and it is a fact that they did not purchase the entire area of the
suit land. Moreover, the respondents have been occupying more
than their purchased area. Therefore, the claim against the
petitioners is not sustainable with regard to eviction.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record. By
moving the application dated 04.10.2023 which has been filed
under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, the petitioners are seeking following
amendment:-
“(i) After Para No. 8A and before Para No.
9 a new Para as Para No. 8B, be permitted
to be added.
8B. That the plaintiff no. 2 Bhola Prasad of
this suit had filed Title Suit No. 60 of 2009
against the sons of Late Tribhuwan Prasad
Singh namely Manoj Kumar alias Ranjan
Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Kumar alias Pappu
Sharma and others to pass a decree for
specific performance against them. The
plaintiff of this suit had filed a document of
partition dated 24.05.2008 alleging it to be
the document of partition of the family of his
vendors. The said document was marked as
exhibit-2 in said Title Suit No. 60 of 2009.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
15/17
The learned Sub Judge had given it finding
that the partition deed dated 24.5.2008 is not
valid document because the claimed deed of
partition dated 24.5.2008 does not
incorporate all share holders of the joint
family property. The learned Sub Judge
thereafter considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, dismissed the said
Title Suit No. 60 of 2009 vide judgment and
decree dated 9.8.2017.”
10. What the petitioners seek to achieve by moving
the aforesaid amendment is quite perplexing. The petitioners
want to insert the observation made by the court of learned Sub
Judge about document of partition dated 24.05.2008 within the
family of vendors of the respondents. Now, what could be
relevance of such document for the purpose of decision of the
present case? It is a suit for eviction and the respondents have
their claim of right, title and interest over the suit property by
virtue of sale deeds executed by the co-sharers. In this regard
the observation of learned Single Judge made in order dated
19.09.2017 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 20819 of 2013 and 21247 of 2023
in paragraph 9 is quite relevant and extracted hereinafter:-
“(9) In the present case, admittedly on the
date of purchase i.e. in the year 2008 the
plaintiffs stepped into the shoes of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
16/17original landlord. Therefore, the defendants
became tenant under the plaintiffs. Now,
because of subsequent purchase by them
from Rani Sinha their status will not change
unless the sale deed of the plaintiff is
declared not binding on Rani Sinha or that
title of the entire suit property did not vest to
the plaintiffs or that two sons of the original
landlord has no authority to transfer the suit
property particularly when admittedly the
partition suit is pending wherein except this
suit premises there are other properties
also.”
11. When the outcome of Title Suit No. 60 of 2009 is
not going to affect the status of the parties or the nature of the
suit property, seeking amendment of such nature only amounts
to putting spanner in disposal of eviction suit. Learned trial
court has rightly held that amendment sought for is not
necessary to decide the real question in controversy as the same
would not enable the court to decide the question of landlord
tenant relationship between the parties or whether the
plaintiffs/respondents have been able to prove the grounds of
eviction. Since the amendment is not at all necessary for
deciding the aforesaid issues, having regard to the guidelines in
the case of M/s. Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs M/s.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.84 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
17/17
Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors (supra) it could be safely
concluded that the amendment does not appear necessary for
decision of the controversy between the parties and appears to
be malafide.
12. The contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners about respondents being in possession of more than
their purchased area or the respondents being earlier tenants
could not affect the nature of the suit which is for eviction and
the plaintiffs are required to prove that they are landlord and
they have valid grounds for seeking eviction.
13. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that there is no error of jurisdiction in
passing the impugned order by the learned trial court and hence,
the order dated 08.01.2024 is affirmed. Accordingly, the present
petition stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 17.04.2025 Uploading Date 17.06.2025 Transmission Date NA