Patna High Court
Sheela Devi vs Urmila Sinha on 25 July, 2025
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.170 of 2023
======================================================
1. Sheela Devi W/o Ranjeet Sao, Resident of Kazipur/Machua Toli, (Anup
Lane), P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna - 800004.
2. Mala Devi, W/o Santosh Kumar and D/o Ranjeet Sao, Resident of Bakipur
GorakhFatuha, In Front of Hero Show Room, Main Road Fatuha, P.S -
Fatuha, District - Fatuha, Pin Code - 803201 and also R/O Kazipur/Machua
Toli, (Anup Lane), P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna - 800004
3. Kumari Jayanti @ Gyanti Devi (Wrongly mentioned in plaint as Gajanti
Kumari) D/o Ranjeet Sao, Resident of Kazipur/Machua Toli, (Anup Lane),
P.S. - Kadamkuan, District- Patna - 800004.
4. Anupma Kumari @ Anupama Devi, W/o Shayam Sunder Kumar, D/O
Ranjeet Sao, Resident of Kazipur/Machua Toli, (Anup Lane), P.S. -
Kadamkuan, District - Patna - 800004.
5. Priyanka Kumari, D/o Ranjeet Sao, Resident of Kazipur/Machua Toli,
(Anup Lane), P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna - 800004.
6. Akanchha Kumari, D/o Ranjeet Sao, Resident of Kazipur/Machua Toli,
(Anup Lane), P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Urmila Sinha W/o Rabindra Kumar Sinha, resident of Mohalla - Kazipur,
Anup Lane, Machua Toli, P.O. - Bankipur, P.S. - Kadamkuan, District-
Patna.
2. Rabindra Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Kamala Prasad, resident of Mohalla -
Kazipur, Anup Lane, Machua Toli, P.O. - Bankipur, P.S. - Kadamkuan,
District- Patna.
3. Ranjeet Sao, S/o Late Ram Das Sao, Resident of Mohalla - Kazipur, Anup
Lane, Machua Toli, P.O. - Bankipur, P.S. Kadamkuan, District - Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Sheela Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Shvendra Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Devi Das Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Kulanand Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-07-2025
Heard Ms. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Alok Kumar Chaudhary, learned senior counsel
for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
2/25
2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants-
respondents-appellants against the judgment and decree of reversal
passed by the learned First Appellate Court. The matter arises out
of Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011 filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-
respondent nos. 1 & 2 under Section 14 of the BBC Act on the
ground contained in Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(e) and reserve their
right to take another remedy on the ground of default in payment
of rent. The defendants contested the claim by denying the title of
plaintiff no. 1 and further denied the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties therefore, the question of default in
payment of rent does not arise.
3. The eviction suit was dismissed by learned Sub Judge
XVII, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2019 passed in
Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011, which was thereafter challenged by
the plaintiffs by preferring Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 2019. Upon
hearing the parties and considering the materials available on
record, the learned Additional District Judge XVII, Patna vide
judgment and decree dated 14th March, 2023 passed in Eviction
Appeal No. 05 of 2019, set aside the judgment and decree of the
learned Trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
3/25
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the
learned Court of appeal below, the defendant nos. 1 to 6/appellants
have preferred the present Second Appeal.
5. On 13.08.2024, the following substantial questions of
law were formulated while admitting the appeal:-
I. Whether a decree could be passed in favour of the
plaintiff even though the plaintiff failed to establish the
relationship of landlord and tenant?
II. Whether the learned Appellate Court has erred in law
holding that plaintiffs are entitled for decree of eviction without
interfering with the findings of the learned Trial Court that there is
no relationship of landlord and tenant?
III. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court
misdirected itself that the plaintiffs are owner of the suit premises
and deemed to be landlord for the purpose of conducting eviction
proceeding without establishing the relationship of landlord and
tenant?
IV. Whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or
not, though the question of title, if disputed, may incidentally be
gone into, in connection with the primary question for determining
the main question about the relationship between the litigating
parties?
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
4/25
6. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no. 1 is
owner and landlord of the three storied building constructed over
300 sq ft of land, which was purchased by plaintiff no. 1 for
valuable consideration through registered deed of sale dated
02.02.2010
. It is further pleaded that plaintiff no. 2 (the husband of
plaintiff no. 1) looks after and manages the affairs and properties
of plaintiff no. 1, and he is well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case and is also competent to depose in the
suit. He is also made plaintiff no. 2 in the present suit. It is
contended that the aforesaid land consisted of building constructed
on the ground floor measuring 200 sq ft, on the first floor 100 sq ft
and on the second floor 100 sq ft. It is further contended that at the
time of purchase by plaintiff no. 1, the first floor was occupied by
defendant no. 1/ respondent no. 3 and his family (defendant 2nd
set/appellants). The ground floor was tenanted to Sri Raju Kumar
on the monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. The second floor
was occupied by one Arjun Prasad and at the request of the
plaintiffs, the second floor was vacated by Arjun Prasad however,
the tenant of the ground floor namely, Sri Raju Kumar requested
the plaintiff for some time to vacate the premises on the ground
floor.
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
5/25
7. Plaintiff no. 1 granted time to the said Raju Kumar on
lease for a fixed period of 11 months from 15 th February, 2010 to
14th January, 2011 on the same monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- per
month. Defendant no. 1 also took time for 11 months to vacate the
premises in his occupation and agreed to give rent at Rs. 2500/-
per month and promised to vacate the first floor by 14th January,
2011. It is further contended that after the purchase, the plaintiff
made additions to the Schedule 1 property by adding new
construction with a new staircase after demolishing the old
staircase on the ground floor. Plaintiff no. 1 constructed 100 sq ft
and over the first and second floors constructed 200 sq ft
respectively. It is further pleaded that plaintiff no. 1 further
undertook the construction of third floor, which is incomplete and
has walls only upto 10 ft high. The said construction is yet to be
completed. The Schedule 1 property now has construction over the
entire 300 sq ft area right from ground floor upto third floor with
incomplete construction on the third floor. Upon increase in the
area, the tenant Raju Kumar enhanced the rent from Rs. 3000/- to
Rs. 3500/- per month, whereas the defendant’s rent increased from
Rs. 2500/- to 3000/- per month. The premises under the occupation
of defendant no. 1 were leased for a fixed period of 11 months as
stated above, where he was leaving with his family members as
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
6/25
described in Schedule 2 of the plaint, i.e. the suit premises. It is
vehemently pleaded that defendant 1st set paid the monthly rent of
the suit premises till 14th August, 2010 and thereafter defaulted in
payment of rent, since 15th August, 2010 till the filing of the suit.
Hence, defendant no. 1 defaulted in payment of rent for six
consecutive months. Plaintiffs requested the defendant no. 1 to
vacate the suit premises upon expiry of lease on 14 th January 2011
and also requested for payment of the arrears of rent, which
defendant no. 1 refused. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs used
to make an endorsement on receipt of monthly rent on a copy
retained by defendant no. 1. Hence, the suit for eviction of the
defendant is filed on the ground of bonafide personal necessity and
the plaintiff no. 1 reserves her right to seek another remedy on the
ground of default. The suit premises are also required on the
ground of personal necessity for the plaintiff’s residence and on
the ground of expiry of the fixed term of 11 months. The entire
Schedule 1 property was purchased by plaintiff no. 1 from
defendant no. 1 on 02.02.2010 through registered deed of sale,
which was registered on 06.02.2010. Defendant no. 1 was allowed
to continue in possession of the suit premises as fixed term tenant
until 14th January, 2011. After expiry of 11 months, the plaintiff on
15th January, 2011 requested defendant no. 1 to vacate the suit
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
7/25
premises and to pay arrears of rent which was refused by
defendant no. 1.
8. On summon defendant nos. 1 to 7, including the
respondent nos. 3 to 7 and husband of defendant no. 2 appeared
and filed written statement. Besides the ornamental objection, the
defendants challenged the title of plaintiff no. 1 and also pleaded
that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiffs and defendants. It is further pleaded that the property
mentioned in Schedule 1 was actually purchased by Sitaram Sao,
who was maternal uncle of defendant no. 1 namely, Ranjeet Sao.
Late Sitaram Sao was the brother of the grand mother of defendant
nos. 3 to 7 and he purchased the property through an auction sale
vide auction sale certificate dated 27.05.1957. Further, the case of
the defendants is that registered deed of relinquishment dated
12.07.1957 was executed by the said Sitaram Sao in favour of his
sister Binda Devi and her minor son, Ranjeet Sao (defendant no.
1/respondent no. 3). As such, Binda Devi remained in and
continued to have actual exclusive possession of said entire area
covered under the sale certificate dated 27.05.1957. It was further
pleaded that Binda Devi and her husband Late Ram Das raised
permanent and substantial constructions over the entire area quite
openly, peacefully and uninterruptedly without any let or
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
8/25
hindrance from any quarter and at any point of time with full
knowledge at large.
9. Accordingly, Binda Devi and defendant no.
1/respondent no. 3, Ranjeet Sao, since the date of the said
registered deed of relinquishment dated 12.07.1957, both the
mother and son defendant no. 1 acquired permanent indefeasible
and sovereign right, title and interest being the absolute and
exclusive owner of the property holding 16 ana ownership and
being in possession. The names of the Binda Devi and Ranjeet Sao
were mutated in PMC, Machuatoli, Bankipore and used for
payment of holding tax against dues, and property receipts
continued to be issued in the name of mother of defendant no. 1.
From the year 2003, holding tax has been issued in the name of
defendant no. 1 Ranjeet Sao. It is vehemently pleaded that the sale
deed dated 02.02.2010 executed by Ranjeet Sao (defendant no.
1/respondent no. 3) in favour of plaintiff no. 1, was under undue
influence and in an intoxicated state of mind by maneuvering and
over powering defendant no. 1, Ranjeet Sao. The property in
question, being evacuee property purchased through auction sale
could not have been subject to any sale unless and until due
permission was sanctioned by a competent authority, so in view of
the aforesaid requirement, the sale deed executed by defendant no.
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
9/25
1 Ranjeet Sao automatically became quite illegal and invalid.
Moreover, since the suit property is ancestral property, defendant
no. 1, Ranjeet Sao had no exclusive right to sell out the same. All
the daughters of Ranjeet Sao had vested right in the said property.
It is further contended that defendant no. 6 Priyanka Kumari who
holds a lawful Power of Attorney from her father has rightly filed
the Title Suit No. 515 of 2010 against the plaintiffs of the present
suit before filing of the present eviction suit. The present eviction
suit is a counter blast to Title Suit No. 515 of 2010. The defendants
reside in the suit premises as a matter of right and not as tenants of
the plaintiffs. The defendants have not paid any rent to the
plaintiffs nor does any question of same arise in any view of the
matter either legally or factually. Hence, no question arises of any
so called default in payment of rent since 15.08.2010. Therefore,
the eviction suit is not maintainable as there is a title dispute with
respect to the property between the plaintiffs and defendants.
There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
so as to maintain an eviction suit against the defendants. The
defendants, therefore, pray for dismissal of the suit.
10. The pleadings of the parties were considered by the
Trial Court and the following issues were settled in the eviction
suit.
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
10/25
I. Is the suit as framed maintainable or not?
II. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for filing
the present suit?
III. Is the Defendant Ranjeet Sao sold the suit house to
plaintiff through registered sale deed dt. 02.02.2010?
IV. Has the plaintiff bona fide requirements of the suit
house for her personal necessity?
V. Is the defendant entitled to remain in the suit house
without making payments of the house rent to landlord/plaintiff?
VI. Is the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs claimed in the
eviction suit?
VII. Is the plaintiff entitle to getting the arrears of house
rent from the defendant’s default?
VIII. Is the plaintiff entitled for any of the relief under
law?
11. The Trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced by
the parties and materials on record, held that no evidence has been
adduced by the plaintiffs to support their case that there is
landlord- tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants
and it is also held that before the institution of the eviction suit by
the plaintiffs, the defendants had filed the title suit bearing Title
Suit No. 515 of 2010 challenging the sale deed dated 02.02.2010.
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
11/25
The essential ingredients of landlord-tenant relationship, which is
the basis of any eviction suit, is missing. The plaintiff has the
onus/burden to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant,
which the plaintiffs failed to do. There is no chit of paper to
establish any relationship of landlord and tenant between them.
The claim of the ownership on the basis of sale deed dated
02.02.2010 is challenged in Title Suit No. 515 of 2010 which has
been instituted prior to the eviction suit. There are many complex
questions of title involved in the present suit. The plaintiffs seek
decree of eviction simply by showing their title. The plaintiffs
have not proved their relationship of landlord and tenant between
the plaintiffs and defendants. It is further held that since the
plaintiffs have failed to establish any relationship of landlord and
tenant between plaintiffs and defendants, the question of personal
necessity does not arise and it is further held that plaintiffs are not
entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.
12. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
29.01.2019 passed in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011, the plaintiffs-
respondents preferred Title Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 2019. After
hearing both the parties, the learned Appellate Court framed points
for consideration and determination in the aforesaid appeal which
are as follows:-
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
12/25A. Whether the suit is maintainable in present form?
B. Has the plaintiffs got valid cause of action for filing
the suit?
C. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for eviction of suit
property, and to get arrear of rent?
D. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Ld.
Lower Court, is liable to be confirmed, or set aside?
13. The learned Appellate Court after considering the
evidence adduced by the parties and materials on record has held
that it is an admitted case that the registered sale deed dated
02.02.2010 executed in favour of appellant no. 1 was challenged
by the defendants in Title Suit No. 515 of 2010 which was
dismissed by the Trial Court on contest. (Ext. 3). The learned trial
court while deciding the issue nos. 5 & 6 in Title Suit No. 515 of
2010, held that the suit land is self acquired property of Ranjeet
Sao, who is defendant no. 1 in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011 and
that the same has been transferred through a sale deed to appellant
no. 1, who is plaintiff no. 1. The learned Appellate Court further
held that other eviction Suits have been filed by the appellants
bearing Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2011 and Eviction Suit No. 20 of
2011. The claim of the appellants in the aforesaid eviction suits
was based on the registered sale deed dated 02.02.2010. Both the
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
13/25suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants by the
Court holding that appellants are the landlords of the suit property.
It is also mentioned that sale deed dated 02.02.2010 has neither
been cancelled nor declared null and void by any competent court,
rather in Ext. 3, which is judgment of Title Suit No. 515 of 2010,
the sale deed has been declared to be duly executed by Ranjeet Sao
of his self acquired property. Hence, the title of the suit premises
has been declared by Competent Court. The learned Appellate
Court has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors
reported in (1981) 3 S.C.R. 367 and has held that the person in
whose favour the subject property were allotted would be deemed
to be the landlord for the purpose of conducting eviction
proceeding. In the present case, Ranjeet Sao had duly executed the
registered sale deed in favour of appellant no. 1 and hence, the
appellant no. 1 is owner/landlord of the suit premises. So far as the
default in payment of rent is concerned, the learned Appellate
Court held that no document had been adduced by the plaintiffs to
show that what was the rent of suit premises and from when
defendants/respondents defaulted in payment of rent. The
appellants, in their pleadings, specifically pleaded in the plaint
regarding the default of payment of rent and the same was
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
14/25
supported by oral evidence. However, in the absence of any
documentary evidence the arrears of rent cannot be decided.
14. The learned lower Appellate Court dealt with the
issue regarding personal necessity. The witnesses of the plaintiff
supported the claim of plaintiffs on the ground of personal
necessity and further supported the claim of the plaintiffs on the
point of defendants being tenants under the tenancy of the
plaintiffs. The defendants’ main objection is with regard to title of
the suit land and the case challenging the sale deed in Title Suit
No. 515 of 2010, which is sub judice in Appellate Court. The
learned Appellate Court has relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Prativa Devi (SMT) Vs. T.V. Krishnan
reported in (1996) 5 SCC 353 in which it has been held that
landlord is the best judge of the requirements and Courts have no
concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he
should live. Bonafide personal need was a question of fact should
not be normally interfered with. It was further held that
appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for decree of eviction and that the
suit is maintainable and plaintiffs have valid cause of action.
Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to remain in the suit
house. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated
29.01.2019 was set aside. The respondents-defendants were
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
15/25
directed to vacate the suit premises mentioned in Schedule II of
the plaint and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the
appellants-plaintiffs within two months from the date of the order.
15. Ms. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the present suit was filed for eviction of
the defendants on two counts:- (a) default in payment of rent and
(b) personal necessity. The eviction suit has been filed invoking
the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 1982 (in short ‘BBC Act’). It is further submitted that
the established legal possession governing the eviction suit which
is brought within the controls of the aforesaid BBC Act is that
there has to be an established landlord-tenant relationship between
the plaintiffs and defendants of the case. It is further submitted that
no title dispute can be adjudicated in an eviction suit and the title
of the landlord claiming eviction should be clear and indisputable.
Thus, no title dispute which is shrouded as an eviction suit is
maintainable and the recourse left to the parties arising out of such
title dispute is to settle that dispute. Reliance has been placed in
the case of Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Basudeo Prasad and Another
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90 (para 7, 8, 16 & 17) and Gopal
Singh @ Gopal Prasad Vs. Prafulla Chandra Gupta & Ors
reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 555 (para 22 to 26). Learned counsel
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
16/25
further submits that the defendants-appellants and their
predecessors in interest have been residing over the property since
1957 and they are continuing in possession of the property till
date. Defendant no. 1/respondent no. 3 executed a sale deed dated
02.02.2010 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 which has been challenged
by appellant no. 5, who is daughter of respondent no. 3 in Title
Suit No. 515 of 2010, which was dismissed on contest.
16. Being aggrieved, appellant no. 5 filed Title Appeal
No. 06 of 2020 which is still pending before the learned lower
Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the aforesaid suit
bearing Title Suit No. 515 of 2010 was filed by appellant no. 5
prior to the present Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011. It is vehemently
submitted that eviction suit under BBC Act is not maintainable
since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiffs and defendants. There is a concurrent finding of the
courts below that the plaintiffs have not filed any documents to
prove that what was the rent of the suit premises and from when
the defendants defaulted in payment of rent. Despite that learned
lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the definition of
word ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ as defined under Section 2(f) and 2(g)
of the BBC Act explicitly uses the word ‘rent’ as the parameter to
ascertain landlord and tenant relationship and therefore in the facts
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
17/25
and circumstances of the present case, there was no landlord-
tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants. This vital
question has not been considered by the lower Appellate Court.
However, learned Appellate Court has contradicted his own
finding by holding existence of landlord-tenant relationship only
on the basis of being purchaser of the suit property. The question
of title of the plaintiffs is sub judice in Title Appeal No. 06 of
2020. The said appeal is continuation of suit.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted
that learned trial court has rightly held that there is no relationship
of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. On
that score, the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. The lower
Appellate Court erroneously interfered in the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court without any reason/finding on the point of
existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs
and defendants. It is well settled law that existence of landlord-
tenant relationship is sine-qua-non for maintaining a suit for
eviction under the BBC Act. In any event, inquiry into title of the
plaintiffs is beyond the scope of court exercising jurisdiction under
the BBC Act. The scope of the inquiry before the Courts was
limited to the question as to whether the grounds of eviction of the
defendant have been made out in the BBC Act. The question of
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
18/25
title of the parties to the suit premises is not relevant having regard
to the width of the definition of the terms ‘landlord’ and tenant in
clause f and h of Section 2 of the BBC Act.
18. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-
respondents submitted that the suit property was purchased
through registered sale deed dated 02.02.2010 executed by Ranjeet
Sao (husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellant no. 2 to 6)
which is self acquired property of Ranjeet Sao and the same has
been decided in Title Suit No. 515 of 2010 as well as Eviction Suit
No. 14 of 2011 and Eviction Suit No. 20 of 2011 whereby, all the
courts have held that respondent 1st set are landlord of the suit
property and tenants of Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2011 and Eviction
Suit No. 20 of 2011 have already vacated the other parts of the
same building and handed over the possession to the plaintiffs-
respondents. However, sister of Ranjeet Sao namely, Usha Devi
has also filed Title Partition Suit No. 339 of 2022 for her share but
when she found that all the property are self acquired property of
Ranjeet Sao then she withdrew her case. It is vehemently
submitted that appellant nos. 5 filed suit for declaration of her
right, title and interest bearing Title Suit No. 515 of 2010 and not
for cancellation of sale deed dated 02.02.2010 and the said suit has
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
19/25
already been dismissed so, the question of title of appellants over
the suit property does not arise.
19. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents
further submitted that learned Appellate Court has clearly held that
plaintiffs had specially pleaded in the plaint regarding the default
of payment of rent and the same is supported by oral evidence but
in absence of any documentary evidence, the arrears of rent was
not decided. However, the suit is only for eviction on the ground
of personal necessity under Section 14 of the BBC Act on the
grounds containing in Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(e) and reserve
her right to take another remedy on the ground of default. There is
no claim for arrears of rent in the present suit. It is specifically
pleaded in the plaint that defendant no. 1 is occupying the first
floor of Schedule I property as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.
3500/- for fixed period of 11 months and living with her family
members which is described in Schedule II of the plaint (the suit
premises). Defendant 1st set has paid the monthly rent of suit
premises to the plaintiffs till 14th August, 2010 and thereafter they
have defaulted in payment of rent since 15th August, 2010 till the
filing of the suit.
20. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of
the parties and materials available on record as well as impugned
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
20/25
judgment, before deciding the substantial questions of law, it is
necessary to deal with the scope of the suit. The present eviction
suit is only for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under
Section 14 of the BBC Act on the ground contained in Section
11(1)(c) and 11(1)(e) of the Act and plaintiffs have reserved their
right to take another remedy on the ground of default in payment
of rent. There is no claim for arrears of rent in the present suit. It is
specifically pleaded in the plaint that defendant no. 1 is occupying
the first floor of Schedule I property as tenant on monthly rent of
Rs. 3500/- for fixed period of 11 months and living with her family
members including defendant no. 2, who is the wife of the
defendant no. 1. The suit premises are required for their residence
and on the ground of expiry of 11 months. The entire Schedule I
property was purchased by plaintiff no. 1 from defendant no. 1 on
02.02.2010 through registered deed of sale, which was registered
on 06.02.2010. Defendant no. 1 was allowed to continue in
possession of the suit premises as fixed term tenant till 14 th
January, 2011.
21. The substantial questions of law having been framed
by this court in this appeal is mainly concerned on the point of
existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs
and defendants. The learned Trial Court has held that there is no
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
21/25
relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and
defendants and also held that there is no chit of paper to establish
any relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Title Suit
No. 515 of 2010 (Ext. A) was filed by defendant no. 5 (one of the
daughter of defendant no. 1), who is appellant no. 5 for declaring
that defendant no. 3(Ranjeet Sao) had got no right to sell away the
suit property to defendant no. 1 and 2 plaintiffs of Eviction Suit
No. 08 of 2011 have not acquired any legal, valid title and
possession over the suit land pursuant to sale deed dated
02.02.2010 executed in favour of defendant no. 1(plaintiff no. 1 of
Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2011) and the same be declared illegal,
void, ineffective, fraudulent and not at all binding upon the
plaintiffs and also for injunction. The suit filed by the appellants is
prior to filing of the eviction suit and the matter is sub judice
before the Trial Court. Mere purchase of suit property from earlier
occupant/vendor of the premises will not automatically make the
tenant of the subsequent purchaser in respect of the suit premises
while the learned Appellate Court reversed the finding of
relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and
defendants and held that plaintiffs had specifically pleaded in the
plaint regarding title of the suit property on the basis of sale deed
dated 02.02.2010 executed by defendant no. 1/respondent no. 3
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
22/25
and also plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint regarding the default of
payment of rent and the same is supported by oral evidence. Title
Suit No. 515 of 2010 (Ext. A) was dismissed by the trial court on
contest and the learned trial court has further held that suit land is
self acquired property of Ranjeet Sao (defendant no. 1). Other
eviction suits bearing Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2011 and Eviction
Suit No. 20 of 2011 were filed by the plaintiffs-respondents in both
the eviction suits, Plaintiffs have been declared as landlord on the
basis of sale deed dated 02.02.2010. The said deed has neither
been cancelled nor declared null and void and further held that
plaintiffs are owner and landlord of the suit premises. So far
personal necessity is concerned, the appellants-plaintiffs in their
examination in chief (P.W. 1 & P.W. 2) vide paragraph 3 has stated
the need of the suit property for personal use. P.W. 7 and P.W. 8
have also stated about the claim of plaintiffs on the ground of
personal necessity. It is further held that all the witnesses on behalf
of the plaintiffs have supported the claim of the plaintiffs on the
point of sale of suit premises in favour of plaintiffs and decreed the
suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
22. On analysis by the learned Appellate Court, it is held
that the relationship between the landlord and tenant is proven in a
suit for eviction. The definition of ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ under the
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
23/25
BBC Act had been expressed in the case of Rajendra Tiwari Vs.
Basudev Prasad reported in 2002 (1) SCC 90. The Apex court
has held that in any event, inquiry into title of the plaintiff is
beyond the scope of Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act.
That being position the impugned order of the High Court
remanding the case to the First Appellate Court for recording
finding on the question of title of the parties is unwarranted and
unsustainable. It is apparent that in the impugned judgment of
Appellate Court, the Court has decided the title of the parties not
only on the basis of sale deed but the claim of the plaintiffs as
landlord has been accepted in view of dismissal of Title Suit No.
515 of 2010. The entire case of the defendants-appellants is that
they denied the title of plaintiffs and also denied that Ranjeet Sao
has any right to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit
premises. Moreover, the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff
no. 1 has not been cancelled by any competent court. 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 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
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
24/25
plaintiff or their vendor. It is well settled that in a case where
defendant denies the relationship, the court has to examine the
material then available and come to a conclusion whether such
denial or a dispute as to title of the plaintiff is bonafide or a mere
pretence and if the court finds that there is no prima facie merit in
the said denial then the defendant can be called upon to make
deposit of rent.” In the present case, although the defendants-
appellants denied the title of the plaintiffs and claim their right as
title holder, the said claim has been dismissed in Title Suit No. 515
of 2010. It is apparent from the record that the suit was filed only
for personal necessity on the ground contained in Section 11(1)(c)
and 11(1)(e) of the BBC Act. No claim or relief has been sought
for arrears of rent. Both the courts erred that the present suit has
been filed for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and also
default in payment of rent but there is no claim for arrears of rent.
On this aspect, the plaintiffs have reserved their right to take
another remedy on the ground of default. The question of personal
necessity is question of fact which is not usually interfered. So far
the finding with regard to personal necessity is concerned, the
appellate court has discussed the necessity of the plaintiffs for their
residence. After considering the pleadings as well as evidence
adduced by them, the relationship of landlord and tenant has been
Patna High Court SA No.170 of 2023 dt.25-07-2025
25/25
proved between the plaintiffs and defendants. Further, on the other
parts of the purchased property through two other eviction suits,
plaintiffs have been declared landlord of the suit premises.
23. In view of the above discussions and the findings,
the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is affirmed and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantial questions of
law formulated in this appeal are, answered against the appellants.
24. Thus, this Second Appeal has got no merit and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
25. The stay of further proceeding in Execution Case
No. 405 of 2023 pending before the court of learned Sub-Judge-
XVII, Patna, granted vide order dated 13.08.2024 is hereby
vacated.
26. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
Sankalp/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 03.04.2025 Uploading Date 26.07.2025 Transmission Date NA