Patna High Court – Orders
Rajendra Kumar Das vs Binita Kashliwal on 19 June, 2025
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.30 of 2024
In
Miscellaneous Appeal No.686 of 2023
======================================================
1. Rajendra Kumar Das son of Munni Das, Resident of Village/Mohalla-
Dharamganj, Police Station- Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj.
2. Dharamshila Devi Wife of Rajendra Kumar Das, Resident of
Village/Mohalla- Dharamganj, Police Station- Kishanganj, District-
Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Binita Kashliwal Wife of Deepak Kumar Kashliwal, Resident of
Village/Mohalla- Dharamganj, P.O. and P.S.-Kishanganj, District-
Kishanganj.
2. Manisha Kashliwal, Wife of Manisha Kashliwal, Resident of
Village/Mohalla- Dharamganj, P.O. and P.S.-Kishanganj, District-
Kishanganj.
3. Sonia Kashliwal, Wife of Navin Kumar Kashliwal, Resident of
Village/Mohalla- Dharamganj, P.O. and P.S.-Kishanganj, District-
Kishanganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, Adv.
Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. Amal Kumar Sinha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER
15 19-06-2025
Heard Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Tiwary, learned
counsel for the opposite parties.
2. This Civil Revision application preferred under
Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 1982 is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 10.05.2023 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2014
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
2/24
by the learned Munsif-II, Kishanganj whereby the learned Trial
Court decreed the suit admitting the plea of personal necessity
of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and directed the
defendants/petitioners to vacate the suit premises within 60 days
from the date of passing of the order, failing which the plaintiffs
shall be at liberty to get the suit premises vacated through the
process of the court.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs are
joint owners of suit premises by virtue of a joint purchase
through four registered sale deeds dated 03.03.2008,
06.03.2008, 11.07.2006 and 18.07.2006 total area 7 kathas 10
dhurs from the rightful owner, namely, Haripaddo Sah. The
vendors of the plaintiffs had constructed three room pucca
house, one kitchen, one bathroom, one latrine along with
courtyard, tubewell and verandah within the boundary wall
covered in four sale deeds. The defendant no. 1 was a tenant of
the said house on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- per month as per
the english calendar in the suit premises from prior to purchase
of the plaintiffs. But after purchasing the suit premises, the
defendants have not paid any rent to the plaintiffs. It is further
pleaded that after purchasing the said suit land along with
houses, the name of the plaintiffs were jointly mutated in the
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
3/24
revenue records and rent was paid to the State of Bihar and
their names were also recorded in Kishanganj Municipal
Council and holding tax was also paid. The
defendants/petitioners are occupying the entire suit premises of
the plaintiffs/opposite parties as a tenant after purchasing the
said suit premises.
4. It is further pleaded that there has been partition in
mess and business between the respective husbands of the
plaintiffs with their father on 20.02.2014, therefore, for bona
fide requirement and for establishing separate business over the
land in suit along with the premises is bonafidely required by
the plaintiffs so that they may mutually partition and setup
separate business premises for their respective husbands. The
requirements of the plaintiffs for bona fide use and occupation
of the suit premises is such that it cannot be substantially
satisfied by partial eviction of the defendants’ tenants. It is
further contended that the father-in-law of the plaintiffs
disclosed to defendant no. 1 on 01.03.2014 that he has effected
an amicable partition between his sons, therefore, the suit
premises is required by his daughter-in-laws for fulfilling the
requirements of their respective husbands. Hence, the
defendants should vacate and hand over the vacated possession
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
4/24
of the suit premises to the plaintiffs. It is further contended that
on 11.03.2014, the defendant no. 1 met the father-in-law of the
plaintiffs in court premises and said that since his wife has filed
the suit against the plaintiffs and their vendors jointly for
specific performance of contract bearing Title Suit No. 11 of
2009 in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Kishanganj, hence, both of
them have no intention to vacate the suit premises and the
plaintiffs may do whatever they think. Therefore, the plaintiffs
have filed the present suit for eviction of the defendants from
the entire premises.
5. After service of summons, the defendants appeared
and filed their written statement and denied the claim of the
plaintiffs. It is pleaded that the father of Haripaddo Sah, namely,
Late Avinash Chandra Sah while he had right, title and interest
over the land described in Schedule-A of the written statement
had constructed pucca dwelling house over the portion of the
land consisting several pucca rooms, bathroom, latrine etc. The
rest heirs of Avinash Chandra Sah had registered a deed of
Power of Attorney in favour of Haripaddo Sah. On 20.05.1979,
the defendant no. 2, Dharamshila Devi, came to know from her
husband defendant no. 1 and others that Haripaddo Sah wants to
sell his land with a pucca building described in Schedule-A,
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
5/24
then defendant no. 1 also became ready to purchase the suit
land. The price of the land including pucca building having 4
kathas equivalent to 10 decimal 4 karis was finalized at the rate
of Rs. 4, 50,000/- in presence of witnesses. An agreement to sale
was executed on 04.06.2006 by Haripaddo Sah by taking
earnest money of Rs. 3, 52,000/- from defendant Dharamshila
Devi. On the same date, Haripaddo Sah promised to defendant
no. 2 to execute sale deed in favour of her after taking rest
amount of Rs. 98, 000/-. It is further contended that the
defendants are residing with their family members in building of
the suit land from August, 1990 as a tenant on rent of Rs 500/-
per month. At the request of Haripaddo Sah, the defendant no. 1
had made an expenditure of Rs. 30,000/- for repair work of the
said building in October, 2004. This amount has not been
adjusted against rent as yet as promised by Haripaddo Sah. The
defendants came to know on 23.06.2008 after receipt of notice
that Haripaddo Sah has sold the said land and building through a
registered sale deed dated 06.03.2008 and sale deed dated
03.03.2008 to the plaintiffs fraudulently by committing breach
of trust in collusion with the plaintiffs. On being aggrieved with
the fraudulent and illegal act of Haripaddo Sah and the
plaintiffs, the defendant no. 2 Dharamshila Devi filed Title Suit
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
6/24
No. 11 of 2009 which is pending in the Court of Sub-Judge-I,
Kishanganj, therefore, the present eviction suit is not
maintainable because two civil suits between the same party for
the same suit premises cannot proceed side by side as it is
barred by law.
6. Upon completion of pleadings and consideration of
rival contentions, the following issues were framed by the Trial
Court:-
(i). Is the suit maintainable ?
(ii). Whether the plaintiffs have got a valid cause of
action to file the suit against the defendants in view of pending
TS no. 11 of 2009 in the court of Ld. Sub Judge IV?
(iii). Whether there is a relationship of landlord and
tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants?
(iv). Whether the plaintiffs are under reasonable
necessity of the suit premises?
(v). Whether the defendants/tenants can be evicted
from the entire suit premises?
(vi). Whether the requirement of the tenant can be
fulfilled by partial eviction?
(vii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the cost of
the suit?
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
7/24
(viii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any relief
or reliefs as sought for in the plaint?
7. The learned Trial Court firstly took Issue No. III
with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of
evidence brought on record and came to a finding that plaintiffs
are owner of the suit property vide registered sale deeds Exhibit
3 and 3A purchased from Haripaddo Sah. It is admitted fact that
the defendants have been residing in the suit premises from
August, 1990 as a tenant. It is an admission of tenancy on the
part of the defendants and also a admission that they are tenants
of Haripaddo Sah. It is further held that through paragraph 12 of
the written statement it is pleaded that their proposed vendor
Haripaddo Sah sold the suit land and premises to the plaintiffs
fraudulently. There is an admission of the defendants that they
have not paid any rent even after the date of alleged sale deeds
of the suit land and premises to the original landlord of the
defendants. The plaintiffs after purchase of the suit land and
premises entered into the shoes of the landlord of the
defendants. The plaintiffs have became the landlord of the
tenants. This amounts sufficient evidence on record to prove the
relationship of landlord and tenants between the plaintiffs and
defendants.
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
8/24
8. Issue Nos. (iv), (v) and (vi) were taken up together
by the Trial Court as they were the main issues to be contested
in the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court upon examination of
oral and documentary evidence led by the parties has come to a
finding that the plaintiffs’ sister-in-law (gotni) and their
husbands are full brothers and they are doing business. Their
husbands are looking to establish separate business for
themselves for which they required the suit premises and land.
They found that the suit land and premises are suitable and
reasonable for the above purpose. It is further held that in a joint
family the above requirement of the suit premises appear to be
bona fide and reasonable. The case of the plaintiffs are
corroborated by the testimony of PW-5 stating that his daughter-
in-laws have filed the suit as partition had taken place between
him and his sons in mess and business. Therefore, they required
the suit land and premises for their husbands to set up
independent business and get more space to expand their
business. Presently, they are living in the same old house and are
doing business at the same place. Now, they require separate
space to do business independently. At present, the family
business is being run in the name of one son, namely, Navin,
while there is another son, namely, Jeetendra and has got issued
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
9/24
a license from the authorities to do business in his name but due
to non-availability of enough space, he could not commence his
business for their livelihood. In the above discussion, the
learned Trial Court has held that the requirement of the
plaintiffs’ appears to be bona fide and reasonable and the
plaintiffs have proved their case.
9. The learned Trial Court further held that the
defendants have not denied the pleadings of the plaintiffs in
their written statement, rather, their pleadings is based on denial
of relationship of landlord and tenants between the plaintiffs and
the defendants. The defendants have pleaded that they have
acquired title and ownership in the suit premises on the basis of
agreement to sale dated 04.06.2006 (Mark-X), which is only 4
kathas equivalent to 10 decimals 4 karis. The defendants have
not denied the personal requirement of the plaintiffs with respect
to the suit premises.
10. The learned Trial Court has further held that on
perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiffs have filed the
suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises and
tenants on sole ground of personal necessity under Section 11(I)
(c) of the BBC Act by virtue of the provision under Section 14
of the BBC Act. The defendants before filing the written
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
10/24
statement were required to take permission of the Court to do
so. There is no evidence available on record to show that the
defendants have taken permission to file written statement. The
requirement of taking leave of the Court is mandatory. In
absence of taking leave, neither the written statement can be
accepted nor the tenant can be allowed to contest the suit. In
absence of such leave taken by the tenant in this case, the
written statement of the defendants cannot be taken into
consideration. It shall be deemed that the defendants have
admitted the pleadings of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs
are entitled to a decree of eviction on the ground of personal
requirement. It is further held that the defendants are in bona
fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises for
personal necessity.
11. So far the question of partial eviction is
concerned, the learned Trial Court has held that once the
landlord has proved the need of premises, the onus shifts on the
tenants. The defendants did not prove that partial eviction of the
suit premises would satisfy the requirement of the plaintiffs. On
the other hand, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in the
plaint and in their evidence that partial eviction cannot fulfill
their requirement. The defendants have taken plea that a suit for
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
11/24
specific performance of contract is pending with respect to the
suit land. Therefore, the present suit cannot proceed further. The
Trial Court has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case
of Gajendra Pd. Sinha vs. Man Mohan Pd. Sinha reported in
1999 (1) BBCJ 456, wherein, it has been held that “a suit for
specific performance is pending wherein in the plaintiff is also a
party, the same alone cannot be said to be barrier for granting
an eviction decree in favour of the plaintiff when uptill date he
has acquired title over the suit property subject to the decision
in the specific performance suit” Therefore both the suits can
proceed accordingly. The Issue No. 2 has been answered in
favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly, decreed the suit in
favour of the plaintiffs.
12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
10.05.2023 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2014 by the
Trial Court, the defendants/petitioners have filed the present
Civil Revision application.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the Trial Court wrongly held that the eviction suit
and the suit for specific performance of contract are based on
different cause of action. In fact, the suit for specific
performance of contract bearing Title Suit No. 11 of 2009 has
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
12/24
been filed by the petitioners for the suit premises (4 kathas land)
on the basis of agreement to sale dated 04.06.2006 executed by
Haripaddo Sah. The present suit has been filed in the year 2014
for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises. While the
plaintiffs purchased the suit premises and land in the year 2008
by two registered sale deeds dated 03.03.2008 and 06.03.2008
from Haripaddo Sah.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
R.Kanthimathi and Anr. vs. Beatrice Xavier reported in 2000
(9) SCC 339, wherein, the Apex Court has held that “Any jural
relationship between two persons could be created through
agreement and similarly could be changed through agreement
subject to the limitations under the law. Earlier when the
appellants were inducted into tenancy it only means both agreed
that their relationship was to be that of landlord and tenant.
Later when the landlord decided to sell this property to the
tenant and the tenant agreed by entering into agreement, they
by their positive act changed their relationship as purchaser
and seller. When the seller-landlord accepts the sum he actually
acts under this agreement. This acceptance preceded by
agreement of sale changes their relationship. This is how they
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
13/24
intended. Once accepting such a change, their relationship of
landlord-tenant ceases.” It is further submitted that land owner
executed agreement for sale in favour of the
defendants/petitioners, accepted the sum as advance money for
sale of the suit premises. In view of the aforesaid decision, there
is no relationship of landlord and the tenants between Haripaddo
Sah and the defendants. Moreover, the plaintiffs are subsequent
purchaser of the suit premises. The plaintiffs have not filed any
receipt or document to establish that the relationship of the
landlord and the tenant existed.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the present eviction suit was filed for eviction on the ground
of personal necessity. The plaintiffs claim of eviction on the
ground of bona fide need was stated to be the need of their
respective husbands. They required separate space for each to
do business independently in the suit premises. The plaintiffs
have not proved their bona fide requirement to make out a
ground for eviction of the tenant. The entire suit property is
measuring 7 kathas 10 dhurs. The eviction of the tenant from a
part of the premises can substantially satisfy the landlords’ need
which was not considered by the Trial Court. Reliance has been
placed in the case of Krishna Murari Prasad vs. Mitar Singh
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
14/24
reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 439. Lastly, the learned counsel
submitted that the court below also failed to appreciate the
evidence adduced by the defendants/petitioners on the question
of personal necessity.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
plaintiffs/opposite parties supported the judgment and decree by
submitting that there is no illegality or perversity in the
judgment.
17. The learned Trial Court after considering and
appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the parties came to
a finding of fact regarding personal necessity of the plaintiffs. It
is further submitted that the defendants were tenant of
Haripaddo Sah from August, 1990 till the sale of the suit
premises by Haripaddo Sah to the plaintiffs in 2008. It is also
admitted case of the parties that the defendants are not paying
rent to the plaintiffs. The entire claim of the petitioners is on the
basis of agreement to sale executed by Haripaddo Sah in favour
of the defendant no. 1 in the year 2006, and a Title Suit No. 11
of 2009 was filed by the petitioners after purchasing the suit
land by the plaintiffs which is pending in the Court of Sub-
Judge-I, Kishanganj. The sale in favour of the plaintiffs is
admitted and as such the title of the plaintiffs is admitted. The
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
15/24
status of the defendants as tenants since 1990 is admitted.
Therefore, on facts, as stand admitted, the status of defendants
continues to be tenant and there is no change much less by
virtue of any finding of any Court as that matter is sub judice.
Merely on ground of a declaration of a right, title or interest at a
future date, the present status of a person cannot change as till
such declaration is made in a lawful manner, the status remains
as before which, as admitted by the defendants themselves, was
that of a tenant. This view has been relied upon by the
plaintiffs/opposite parties in the case of Om Prakash Gupta vs.
Smt. Munni Devi reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 5.
18. It is further submitted that the
defendants/petitioners were tenants of Haripaddo Sah since
1990 till 2008 before execution of sale deed in favour of the
plaintiffs. The right of lessor’s transferee enumerated in Transfer
of Property Act. From perusal of the provision of Section 109, it
is manifest that after the transfer of lessor’s right in favour of
the transferee, the latter gets all rights and liabilities of the lessor
in respect of subsisting tenancy. The section does not insist that
transfer will take effect only when the tenant attorns. It is well
settled that a transferee of the landlord’s rights steps into the
shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
16/24
transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. Section
109 does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord
can take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by
the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of
the landlord’s rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not
required, a notice under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of
lease by the transferee landlord would be proper and so also the
suit for ejectment. This view has been taken in the case of
Ambica Prasad vs. Md. Alam & Anr. reported in (2015) 13
SCC 13.
19. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties
further submits that the question of requirement of the premises
in question could be satisfied by partial eviction. The court
below has discussed the pleadings and evidence adduced by the
parties. The court below has taken into account that husbands of
both the plaintiffs are living in the same house (old house) and
doing business at the same place. Now, they require separate
space after partition in mess and business for each other to do
business independently and get more space to expand their
business further.
20. It is further submitted that landlord has proved the
need of the premises. The onus shifts upon the tenants. There is
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
17/24
no pleading of the defendants on the point of partial eviction.
The court below has found that the defendants could not
successfully establish that the bona fide requirement of the
plaintiffs for occupation of the premises in question for their
personal use could be satisfied by partial eviction. The findings
recorded by the court below are based on analysis of pleadings
and evidence available on record. The judgment and decree
passed in Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2014 by the Trial Court is
legal, just, proper and in accordance with law. Hence, it doesn’t
require to be interfered by this Court.
21. Upon a careful consideration of the submissions
advanced by the parties, the evidence brought on record, and the
impugned judgment, it is manifest that the plaintiffs-opposite
parties purchased the suit premises through four registered sale
deeds dated 03.03.2008, 06.03.2008, 11.07.2006, and
18.07.2006, comprising a total area of 7 kathas and 10 dhurs,
from the original owner, namely, Haripaddo Sah. On the other
hand, the defendant-petitioners assert that an agreement for sale
was executed between Defendant No. 1 and Haripaddo Sah on
04.06.2006 in respect of 4 kathas of land (equivalent to 10
decimals and 4 karis). It is pertinent to note that the defendants
have themselves admitted that they have been residing in the
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
18/24
suit premises along with their family members since August
1990 as tenants, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. In the light
of the authoritative pronouncement in Ambica Prasad (supra)
“it is well-settled that a transferee of the landlord’s right steps
into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of
the transferor landlord in respect of subsisting tenancy.”
22. In view of the admitted position that the
defendants-petitioners have been residing in the suit premises,
coupled with the plaintiffs’ established title on the basis of the
registered sale deeds, the relationship of landlord and tenant
stands proved beyond doubt. This proposition is well supported
by the decision in the judgment rendered in Maharana Pratap
Singh vs. Ambika Prasad Singh, reported in 2023 (2) PLJR
321.
23. The defendants-petitioners have admitted that
they were residing in the suit premises and the plaintiffs
establish their title through sale deeds, the relationship of
landlord and tenant was established beyond doubt as held in the
case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. Ambika Prasad Singh
(supra). Further, in the case of Shamim Ara Naz & Anr. Vs.
Mohammad Quamruddin reported in 1997(1) PLJR 526 this
Court has held that “when the learned court below has come to
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
19/24
a prima facie finding that the plaintiff established his ownership
over the suit premises then the application ought not to have
been rejected on the ground that there was no evidence of
payment of rent by the defendant to the plaintiff or their
vendor.”
24. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
relationship of landlord and tenant was proved by the plaintiffs.
25. The defendants have asserted their claim over the
suit premises on the basis of an alleged agreement for sale
executed by Haripaddo Sah. It is further stated that the
defendants have instituted a suit for specific performance of
contract, being Title Suit No. 11 of 2009, against Haripaddo Sah
and others, including the present plaintiffs, which is stated to be
pending adjudication. It is an admitted position that the suit
instituted by the defendants has not yet been decreed. The mere
pendency of the said suit does not bar a decree for eviction, as
held in Gajendra Prasad Sinha (supra).
26. The plaintiffs seek eviction on grounds of personal
necessity as their husbands require the suit premises for
business after a family partition dated 20.02.2014. The
plaintiffs’ husbands, being brothers, intend to establish separate
businesses after the family partition, and for that purpose, they
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
20/24
require the suit premises. This fact has been substantiated by the
plaintiffs, particularly through the testimony of PW-5, Vijay
Kumar Kashniwal, their father-in-law, who deposed that a
partition took place between him and his sons with respect to
the mess and business. The plaintiffs require the suit land and
premises for their husbands to establish independent businesses.
PW-5 further deposed that the existing family business is
currently being operated in the name of one son, Navin, while
another son, Jeetendra, has obtained a license issued by the
concerned authorities to carry on business in his own name.
However, due to lack of sufficient space, Jeetendra is unable to
commence his business for the purpose of earning a livelihood.
It is pertinent to note that these facts have not been disputed by
the defendants.
27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as the evidence brought on record, this Court finds
that the plaintiffs have successfully demonstrated a bona fide
need for the suit premises to enable their husbands to establish
separate businesses.
28. The defendants have miserably failed to disprove
the plaintiffs’ claim with any cogent evidence. The learned
lower court has rightly found the plaintiffs’ bona fide personal
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
21/24
requirement to be legal and proper.
29. It is apparent from the materials on record as well
as admitted case of the parties that neither the plea of partial
eviction was taken by the defendants in their written statement
nor any evidence have been adduced by them to show that the
defendants’ partial eviction from the suit premises would satisfy
the requirement of the plaintiffs. This Court has placed reliance
upon the judgment in the case of Food Corporation of India &
Others v. Vishun Properties & Enterprises & Others, reported
in 1995 BBCJ 711, as well as the decisions in the case of M/s
Bata India Ltd. v. Dr. Md. Qamruzzama reported in 1993(1)
PLJR 87 (DB), and in the case of Hira Lal Das & Another v.
Loknath Newatia reported in 2014(4) PLJR 476.
30. It also transpires from the impugned judgment that
the learned Court below has recorded the finding on the basis of
scrutiny of the evidence as led by the parties. During the course
of submission, this Court has not been persuaded to find
perversity or unreasonableness in any manner.
31. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others Vs.
M. Chinniyan & Anr. reported in (2016) 3 SCC 296, the
revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Acts is
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
22/24
circumscribed by limitations and the revisional Court is only to
see whether order for eviction is according to law or not. Their
Lordships, in the aforesaid judgment, have observed as
follows:-
“….So far as the issue pertaining to
exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court while hearing revision petition arising out of
eviction matter is concerned, it remains no more
res integra and stands settled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC
78. Justice R.M. Lodha, C.J.,the learned Chief
Justice speaking for the Bench held in para 43
thus:
“43. We hold, as we must, that none of
the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court
to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the
first appellate court/first appellate authority
because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its
view is different from the court/authority below.
The consideration of examination of the evidence
by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under
these Acts is confined to find out that finding of
facts recorded by the court/authority below is
according to law and does not suffer from any
error of law. A finding of fact recorded by
court/authority below, if perverse or has been
arrived at without consideration of the material
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
23/24evidence or such finding is based on no evidence
or misreading of the evidence or is grossly
erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result
in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to
correction because it is not treated as a finding
according to law. In that event, the High Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the
above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set
aside the impugned order as being not legal or
proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself
as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any
decision or order impugned before it as indicated
above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity,
correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned
decision or the order, the High Court shall not
exercise its power as an appellate power to re-
appreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a
different finding on facts. Revisional power is not
and cannot be equated with the power of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court
of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to
be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it
may examine whether the order impugned before it
suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.”
32. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment
and order of eviction dated 10-05-2023 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Jr. Div. )-II, Kishanganj in Title Eviction Suit No.
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2024(15) dt.19-06-2025
24/24
04 of 2014.
33. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application, being
devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
34. Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
Prabhat/
Shyambihari/-
U