Patna High Court - Orders
Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited vs Manorma Jha, on 20 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.142 of 2025
======================================================
Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited having its Regd. Office at 23A, Shah
Industrial Estate, Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400053 and
having its Patna Office at Shashi Lane, S.P. Verma Road, Post G.P.O, P.S.
Gandhi Maidan, Town and District Patna represented through its Branch
Manager Prashuram Roy, Male, aged about 74 Years, son of Late Triveni Roy,
resident of S.P. Verma Road, Patna P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Town and District
Patna-800001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Manorma Jha, wife of late Amrendra Jha. resident of Plot No. 20B,
Patliputra Colony, P.O and P.S. Patliputra, Town and District Patna-800813.
2. Saket Kumar Jha, son of late Amrendra Jha. resident of Plot No. 20B,
Patliputra Colony, P.O and P.S. Patliputra, Town and District Patna-800813.
3. Rakesh Kumar Jha, son of Late Amrendra Jha. resident of Plot No. 20B,
Patliputra Colony, P.O and P.S. Patliputra, Town and District Patna-800813.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lovekush Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Varun Krishna Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
7 20-04-2026Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. The civil revision application no. 142 of 2025 has been preferred under the proviso to Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (as amended in 1982) (Hereinafter referred to as "the BBC Act") against the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-III, Patna Sadar(hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in Eviction Suit No. 69 of 2015 Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 2/16 whereby and where under the learned trial court decreed the eviction suit filed under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the BBC Act. The learned Trial Court directed the petitioner/defendant to vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of the suit premises. The suit premises constitute the entire first floor of the old block at Plot No. 20B, Patliputra Colony, Patna.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit premises form part of a double-storeyed building situated at Plot No. 20B, Patliputra Colony, Patna, owned by the plaintiffs, who are the widow of Late Amrendra Jha and his two sons. The ground floor comprises the eastern half in occupation of the plaintiffs themselves, consisting of one hall, two bedrooms, one drawing room, dining space, two bathrooms, and one kitchen, the western half of the house comprises two separate tenanted units measuring 850 sq. ft. and 360 sq. ft. respectively. On the first floor, the suit premises constitute the largest block under the tenancy of the petitioner since 01.06.2003, initially through successive registered lease deeds for 11 months each, with the last unregistered lease deed dated 11.07.2009 for a period of three years expiring on 30.07.2012, rendering the tenancy month-to-month thereafter upon service of notice of termination. Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 3/16
4. Further, Plaintiff No. 1 had earlier instituted Eviction Suit No. 73 of 2012 before the court of Sub Judge-I, Patna Sadar, impleading the petitioner/defendant, its Patna branch, and Prashuram Roy as defendants, seeking eviction inter alia on the grounds of expiry of lease period and a general averment of "bonafide personal necessity" as pleaded in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the plaint thereof (Ext. A), without specifying the nature thereof. Concomitantly, amid alleged threats of forceful dispossession by the plaintiffs or their associates, the petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 448 of 2012 seeking perpetual injunction against such eviction.
5. Subsequently, all three plaintiffs filed the present Eviction Suit under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the BBC Act before the learned Trial Court, specifically pleading that plaintiff No. 2, a Senior Analyst employed with Major and Minor Exims Pvt. Ltd. and residing outside Patna with his wife and two grown-up daughters. He had decided to establish his base and head office at Patna for operating as a market analyst, with the ground floor portion in the plaintiffs' occupation being most suitable for setting up the office and laboratory. The suit premises were reasonably and bonafide required for residential accommodation of plaintiff No. 2 and his family to enable them Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 4/16 to reside jointly with the aged plaintiff No. 1 and no other suitable alternative accommodation was available with the plaintiffs. The requirement could not be substantially fulfilled by partial eviction of the suit premises. The earlier Suit No. 73 of 2012 was not being pursued owing to subsequent developments necessitating the present action under the summary procedure.
6. The petitioner/defendant filed its written statement on 21.09.2015, inter alia contending that the tenancy was month-to-month after the unregistered lease denied they pleaded personal necessity as sham and motivated alleging availability of ample alternative spaces including the plaintiffs' own ground floor portion and a recently vacated unit on the first floor (about one year prior to suit). Petitioner/defendant also highlighted the inconsistency between the general plea in Ext. A and the specific necessity now urged, evincing malafides and referring to the threats prompting Title Suit No. 448 of 2012.
7. The learned Trial Court has examined the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence of both plaintiffs and defendants and framed seven issues which are as follows:
I. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
defendant is their tenant in respect of the
suit premises as described in Schedule-I of
the plaint?
II. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 5/16 require the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for their own occupation?
III. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have no other reasonable suitable accommodation?
IV. Whether the plaintiffs prove that their requirement cannot be satisfied by partial eviction of the suit premises?
V. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiffs had threatened to evict the defendant forcibly from the suit premises?
VI. Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises?
VII. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled?
The plaintiffs adduced evidence through PW-1 (Manorma Jha), PW-2 (Rakesh Kumar Jha), PW-3 (Saket Kumar Jha), and Ext.1 (project report filed on 11.01.2016) which details about the proposed office/lab setup. The petitioner examined DW-1 to DW-7 including Prashuram Roy as DW-2. The petitioner relied on Ext. A. The trial court decreed the suit vide the impugned judgment after due appreciation of evidence.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and decree as vitiated by material irregularities and perversity warranting revisional interference. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court had merely reproduced the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 6/16 DW-1 to DW-7 in paragraphs of the judgment without any meaningful analysis or reasoned application thereof to the issues framed, thereby failing to discharge its primary duty under Order XX Rule 1 and Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC by way of analogy, occasioning failure of justice. Further he submitted that reliance on Ext.1 (project report) filed belatedly on 11.01.2016 long after institution of the suit was wholly erroneous as the same was not contemporaneous with the plaint averments and ought to have been eschewed as an afterthought.
8.i. He Further submitted that the learned Trial Court was stated to have completely overlooked Ext. A (the plaint of Eviction Suit No. 73 of 2012) wherein no whisper of the specific necessity which is now pleaded was made, with only a bald reference to "personal necessity" in paragraphs 9 and 12 thereof, thereby exposing the malafide intent of the plaintiffs in fabricating a subsequent necessity to circumvent the earlier litigation. He also submitted that the threats issued to the petitioner's representatives, culminating in Title Suit No. 448 of 2012 have been ignored, further buttressing the malafides. Learned counsel for petitioner lastly submitted that the availability of alternative accommodations, including the plaintiffs' ground floor portion lying partly vacant and the Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 7/16 recently vacated first-floor unit, rendered the pleaded necessity unreasonable and unworthy of credence. In sum, it was prayed that the decree be set aside, the suit be dismissed and the petitioner be granted consequential reliefs.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the revision was assailed as non- maintainable in limine for want of locus standi on the part of Prashuram Roy, who filed it purportedly as Branch Manager without annexing any board resolution or authorization letter from the petitioner-company especially when his own deposition as DW2 revealed retirement in January 2018 rendering the filing a nullity. He placed reliance on State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computer India Pvt. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 524] (paragraphs 8 to 14), in which Apex Court has held that "in absence of resolution by the Board of Director delegating power to authorize another person to file a suit on behalf of Company was nothing but scrape of paper because of the fact that authority letter was filed in the aforesaid case." In the present case authority letter as well as resolution of the Board has not been filed by the Defendant to contest the suit or to file the civil revision. He further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case of MS Nibro Limited v. National Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 8/16 Insurance Company [AIR 1991 Delhi 25] (paragraphs 23 and
25) that Order 29 Rule-1 of the C.P.C. does not authorize person mentioned therein to institute suits on behalf of the Corporation, thus unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on a particular Director, he has no authority to institute a suit on behalf of the Company Needless to say that such a power can be conferred by the Board of Directors only by passing a resolution in that regard.
9.i. He submitted that the learned Trial Court had meticulously appreciated the evidence in paragraphs 10-17, 30, and 31 of the judgment, rightly holding the personal necessity bonafide and reasonable on the strength of consistent testimonies of PW1 to PW3 corroborated by Ext.1, which detailed the lab/office requirements. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan, Civil Appeal No. 3222 of 2025 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his need and the tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for the need alleged in the suit for eviction and therefore claim of the defendant/ tenant to raise objection about the other available premises is not sustainable in the eyes of Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 9/16 law.
9.ii. He lastly submitted that the earlier Eviction Suit No. 73 of 2012 was expressly withdrawn upon subsequent developments, as pleaded and accepted. Partial eviction was inapplicable as the petitioner had secured alternate accommodation, the need was for the entire block and the expedited disposal pursuant to Civil Misc. Case No. 1211 of 2023 (disposed 04.01.2024) underscored no dilatory tactics. The revision was thus prayed to be dismissed with heavy costs, and vacation directed forthwith.
10. After due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the issues framed for adjudication, and the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed in Eviction Suit No. 69 of 2015, was pleased to allow the suit.
11. The learned trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs/opposite parties is the owner and landlord of the suit premises and that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands admitted. It was further held that the rate of monthly rent and the occupation of the petitioners as a tenant in the suit premises were not in dispute. Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 10/16 The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, accepted the case of the plaintiffs/opposite parties that the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required for their own use and occupation. The learned Trial Court further accepted the evidence that the son of the plaintiffs/opposite party (Plaintiff No. 2) need to start a separate business in the suit premises and that the location of the suit premises is suitable for such purpose.
12. Upon an overall appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, the learned Trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs/opposite parties had successfully established their entitlement to a decree of eviction under Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act, 1982. Consequently, the suit was decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and against the defendants/petitioners. The petitioners were directed to vacate the suit premises Plot no. 20B within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiffs/opposite parties was granted liberty to obtain eviction of the petitioners through the process of the Court
13. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the said provision is extremely limited as the present Civil Revision has been Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 11/16 preferred under Section 14 (8) of the BBC Act, 1982. The revisional Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and cannot reappreciate evidence merely because a different view is possible. Interference is permissible only when the findings of the learned trial Court are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffering from jurisdictional error. The legal position in this regard stands conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (supra). In paragraph 43, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"The revisional court does not have the power to re-appreciate evidence. The jurisdiction is confined to examine whether the findings of fact recorded by the court below are according to law and do not suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error."
In the present case, the learned trial Court has framed specific issues, appreciated oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, and gave reasoned findings. No perversity or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated warranting interference.
14. Coming to the core issue of bonafide personal necessity, the law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and the Court cannot substitute its own Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 12/16 wisdom for that of the landlord. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 252, held in paragraph 15 that:
"It is always the prerogative of the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live or conduct his business. The tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord."
15. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, accepted this requirement as genuine and bonafide. The nature and test of bonafide requirement have been elaborately explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, reported in (1999)6SCC 222, paragraph 11 observed that:
"The requirement of the landlord must be honest, genuine and conceived in good faith. It need not be a dire necessity but must be a real and sincere need." Applying the above test, the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the respondents' need is honest and real, and not a mere pretext for eviction.
Applying the above test, the learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the opposite parties' need is honest and real, and not a mere pretext for eviction.
16. On the core issue of bonafide and reasonable personal necessity, the law gives primacy to the landlord's Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 13/16 assessment of his own need. In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held in paragraph 2 that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and the tenant cannot dictate the manner of his living. Further, in Ramashray Singh v. Bindeshwari Prasad, reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 91, paragraph 10, it was held that requirement of premises for dependent family members is a legitimate and bonafide requirement.
17. The contention for partial eviction has been consistently followed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in PLJR 2005 (3) 719, PLJR 2013 (2) 491, PLJR 2005 (3) 19, and PLJR 2016 (4) 20, wherein it has been held that the plea of partial eviction must be specifically pleaded and proved by the tenant and cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time at the revisional stage. With regard to the existence of cause of action, it is settled law that cause of action is not confined to a single event but consists of a bundle of facts which may arise at different stages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163, held in paragraph 12 that cause of action comprises all those facts which the plaintiff must prove to obtain relief and may arise partly at one place and partly at another. Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 14/16
18. Further, in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137, the Supreme Court held in paragraph 15 that the cause of action crystallizes when the right to sue accrues, particularly upon termination of the legal relationship. Applying this principle, the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Ram Prasad v. Sita Ram, reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 12, held in paragraph 7 that issuance of a notice terminating tenancy furnishes a fresh and valid cause of action for eviction. From the aforesaid principles it is clear that the finding of the learned Trial Court that the opposite parties had a valid and continuing cause of action.
19. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the personal need of the Respondent's son, wherein it is well settled principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 604, held in paragraph 10: "Subsequent events which strengthen the bona fide requirement of the landlord can be taken into consideration." In the present case, the primary ground of eviction remains the personal necessity of the opposite parties
20. Upon an overall consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and settled principles of law, this Court finds that the Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 15/16 learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction properly, applied the correct legal tests, and recorded findings supported by evidence. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and the settled principles of law governing eviction on the ground of bonafide personal necessity under Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act, 1982. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, the bonafide and reasonable requirement of the opposite parties for the suit premises, and the non-feasibility of partial eviction are based on cogent evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error.
22. This Court further finds that the scope of interference under Section 14 (8) of the BBC. Act is limited, and the present Civil Revision does not disclose any ground warranting interference with the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 13.05.2025 passed in Eviction Suit No. 69 of 2015. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026 16/16 merit and do not persuade this Court to take a different view. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision No. 142 of 2025 is dismissed. The judgment and decree 13.05.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-III, Patna Sadar in Eviction Suit No. 69 of 2015 are hereby affirmed and pending IA with regard to the civil revision no. 142 of 2025 is also disposed off.
23. The petitioner/defendant is directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises, as described in the plaint, to the opposite parties/plaintiffs within a period of sixty (60) days from passing of the order of this Court otherwise opposite parties will have right to vacate the suit premise as per process of law.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/-
U