Patna High Court
Manmohan Singh @ Fucho Singh vs Kumari Kavita Sinha on 15 May, 2025
Author: Prabhat Kumar Singh
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.70 of 2022
======================================================
1.1. Aditya Raj Son of Late Manmohan Singh @ Fucho Singh Resident of North
Hajipur, near Durgasthan, Ward No. 13, Sanhauli, Khagaria, Police Station
and District - Khagaria, Bihar.
1.2. Abhishek Kumar Son of Late Manmohan Singh @ Fucho Singh, Resident of
North Hajipur, near Durgasthan, Ward No. 13, Sanhauli, Khagaria, Police
Station and District - Khagaria, Bihar.
1.3. Sandhya Kumari D/o Late Manmohan Singh @ Fucho Singh, Resident of
North Hajipur, near Durgasthan, Ward No. 13, Sanhauli, Khagaria, Police
Station and District - Khagaria, Bihar.
1.4. Amrita Kumari D/o Late Manmohan Singh @ Fucho Singh, Resident of
North Hajipur, near Durgasthan, Ward No. 13, Sanhauli, Khagaria, Police
Station and District - Khagaria, Bihar.
... ... Defendants/ Petitioners
Versus
Kumari Kavita Sinha wife of Ashok Kumar Jamiyar, Resident of North
Hajipur Under Municipality Khagaria, Ward No. 13, P.O.- Khagaria, District-
Khagaria
Plaintiff/Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr.Jitendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr. Abhishek, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2025
Present Civil Revision application is directed against
judgment and decree dated 24.9.2022 passed by Learned Sub-
Judge-I, Khagaria in Eviction Suit No.02/2011 (NET
No.02/2016) by which eviction suit filed by the
plaintiff/opposite party has been decreed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present civil revision is as
follows:-
Plaintiff/ opposite party filed Eviction Suit. In the plaint,
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
2/19
she stated that she owns a dilapidated Khaparposh bricks made
house in Mauza Hajipur, Police Station- Khagaria, Ward No.3
bearing Tauzi No.525, Khata No.156, Thana No.267, Kheshra
No.5(M) having an area of 770 sq.ft. purchased by her from one
Uma Shankar Jamaiyar, who happens to be uncle of her husband
vide registered sale deed No.619 dated 1.2.2011 as described in
the Schedule-1of the plaint. Plaintiff pleaded that she has two
sons who are not employed properly and therefore she has
purchased schedule-I property from her Stridhan with the sole
purpose to start business for her sons by reconstructing the suit
property. She has further pleaded that vendor of the plaintiff had
let out the suit property to two tenants, namely, Dilip Kumar
Sahu occupation of one room on the monthly rent of Rs.1000/-
and rest three rooms with courtyards had been coming in
occupation of defendant/petitioners as tenant of vendor, who has
been paying monthly rent of Rs.2600/-. Vendor of the plaintiff
informed the tenants about the transaction and requested for
vacating the suit property for which they asked some time. One
of the tenants, namely, Dilip Kumar Sahu executed agreement of
rent for 11 month but defendant/petitioner refused to execute
agreement and also refused to vacate the suit house and even
stopped payment of rent from March, 2011.
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
3/19
3. Plaintiff further pleaded that her husband approached
local Administration by filing application to get the suit
premises vacated but finding no solution plaintiff filed eviction
suit having urgent need of Schedule-2 property for their sons
and therefore eviction suit has been filed on the ground of
personal necessity on bona fide requirement.
4. Defendant/original petitioner appeared in the eviction
suit and filed written statement stating therein that there is no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also
denied allegation leveled in the plaint stating therein that the
vendor of the plaintiff, namely, Uma Shankar Jamaiyar had
executed a Mahadnama (agreement for sale) dated 10.8.2010 in
favour of defendant for sale of 8 dhurs of land with house
standing over khata no.156, plot no.5 on the receipt of earnest
money in which it has been stipulated that Uma Shankar
Jamaiyar will execute sale deed on 28.1.2011 after receiving the
remaining consideration money. He further stated that vendor of
plaintiff and executants of Mahadnama, despite repeated request
through notices dated 11.1.2011 and 27.1.2011, evaded to
execute sale deed in favour of defendant/petitioner, as such,
Title suit no.89 of 2011 has been filed for specific performance
of contract and therefore present eviction suit is a counter blast
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
4/19
of the title suit filed by the defendant. Defendant also stated that
plaintiff have no means to purchase the property in question and
she is the wife of Ashok Kumar Jamaiyar, who is the nephew of
Uma Shankar Jamaiyar (vendor) and in order to defeat legal
claim of the defendant for specific performance of contract,
present suit has been filed on 12.10.2011. He further stated that
malafide of the plaintiff will also appear that earlier gift deed
was executed in favour of plaintiff which was presented for
registration before the Registrar but was not registered due to
absence of Registrar and when objection was filed before the
District Magistrate regarding under valuation of the suit
property, thereafter alleged sale deed has been executed in
favour of plaintiff which indicates dishonest intention of the
vendor to avoid specific performance of contract filed by the
defendant-petitioner. It is further stated that so far claim of
personal necessity is concerned, two sons of the plaintiff are not
unemployed and the husband of the plaintiff is a clerk in the
office of Civil Surgeon, Khagaria, therefore, purchase made by
plaintiff from her Stridhan is baseless and not sustainable in the
eye of law. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings as well as
submissions made in the written statement defendant/petitioner
objected claim of the plaintiff/ opposite party by filing his
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
5/19
written statement before the trial court. Plaintiff/opposite party
had filed Eviction Suit No.02/2011 in the court of learned Sub-
Judge-I, Khagaria seeking relief for eviction of the
defendant/original petitioner Manmohan Singh @ Fucho Singh
(present petitioners are heirs of original petitioners) on the
ground of personal necessity as provided Under Section 11 (1)
(C) of the Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1982 (in short BBC Act). Defendant/original petitioner
appeared in the eviction suit and filed written statement
controverting the points taken by learned counsel for the
plaintiff/ respondent in support of the eviction suit. Trial court,
considering the submissions of the rival parties and on going
through the materials available on the records, decreed the
eviction suit on contest, against the defendant/ original
petitioner directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and
deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to plaintiff/opposite
party positively within sixty days from the date of decree.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioners submits
that from perusal of Section 11(1) (C) of the B.B.C.Act it
appears that for the personal necessity, Plaintiff/Opposite Party
is required to produce cogent evidence in order to show the
bonafide requirement of the suit premises. In the case at hand
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
6/19
except statement, in paragraph no.9 of the plaint regarding
personal necessity, there is no pleading as to what is the
bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff for the suit premises. She
stated that the premises is required for her son to run business
but no statement about the nature of business as well as
bonafide requirement has been disclosed and on this ground the
plaintiff has failed to prove her case for bonafide requirement.
6. It is next submitted that from perusal of the finding of
the trial court start from page no.12, it appears that much
emphasis has been drawn on the sale deed dated 1.2.2011
(Ext.1) whereas, prior to that, defendant/petitioner had entered
into an agreement dated 10.8.2010 (Ext.B) with the vendor of
the Plaintiff/Opposite Party. Legal notices dated 11.1.2011
(Ext.C) and 27.1.2011 (Ext.C/1) were documentary evidences
adduced on behalf of Defendant/ Petitioner which indicates that
prior to the sale deed of the Plaintiff/Opposite Party,
defendant/petitioner entered into an agreement for sale and as
such he was not a tenant of the plaintiff/opposite party, rather, he
was owner having rightful possession pursuant to the agreement
for sale after payment of reasonable consideration money.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the
defendant/petitioner adduced these documentary evidences to
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
7/19
show that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties but surprisingly the trial court has not discussed and
considered the vital peace of evidence adduced by the
Defendant/Petitioner i.e. Ext.B, Ext.C and Ext.C/I and on this
ground alone the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside.
In this case, trial court has failed to appreciate that while
deciding bonafide requirement, need has to be real one rather
than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. In this case, no
pleading and cogent evidence has been produced by the Plaintiff
Opposite Party to show that bonafide need is real one and as
such the finding of the trial court is erroneous not based on valid
evidence.
8. Learned counsel has referred to a decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in a case of Maharaj Singh and others Vs. Karan
Singh and others reported in 2024 (5) BLJ Supreme Court
Page 57 in which in paragraph no.16 it has been held that in
view of Clause-b of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act the
defendant who are claiming under the sale deed executed after
execution of agreement can be subjected to a decree of Specific
Performance as the suit Agreement can be enforced specially
against such defendant unless they are bonafide purchaser
without a notice of original contract. In the present case,
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
8/19
plaintiff/ opposite party who is subsequent purchaser failed to
prove that she entered into the sale deed without notice of the
agreement therefore in view of Section 19(b) a decree can be
passed against her by directing the subsequent purchaser to
execute the sale deed alongwith original vendor in favour of the
agreement holder. In a case of Dr.Ramesh Chandra Vs. Smt.
Premlata Sinha reported in 2008 (3) BLJ 163 it has been held
that the hand of the High Court in exercising revisional power
Under Section 14(8) of the B.B.C.Act is wide enough than the
revisional power granted Under Section 115 of the C.P.C. and as
such the finding recorded by the trial court has to be examined
and considered by exercising the revisional power Under
Section 14(8) of the B.B.C.Act to examine as to whether the
trial court has arrived at a finding of fact upon consideration or
non-consideration of the evidences available on the record. in
the case at hand the trial court being the final court of fact under
the B.B.C.Act has not considered and adjudicated the
documentary evidences adduced by the Defendant/petitioner
and has passed the impugned judgment in mechanical manner
which is fit to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court in exercising
the jurisdiction Under Section 14(8) of the B.B.C.Act.
9. While assailing the aforesaid submissions, learned
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
9/19
counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ opposite party submits that
judgment under revision is well explained and has been passed
after discussing each and every issues as well considering
depositions of witnesses and documents exhibited by rival
parties.
10. He submits that trial court after completion of pleading
framed altogether 8 issues for adjudication of the rival claim of
the parties. In support of her claim, plaintiff produced 13 oral
witnesses and certain documentary evidences, whereas in
support of the claim, defendant/ original petitioner adduced 7
oral witnesses as well as documentary evidences in order to
justify his defence taken by him. Trial court after hearing the
parties decided issue no.5, 6 and 7 in paragraph no.8 of his
judgment whereby it has been held that while deciding issue
no.5 that plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to prove that
she is the owner of suit premises and has stepped into the shoes
of landlord and defendant is the tenant in the suit premises.
While deciding issue no.6 regarding personal and bonafide
requirement of the suit premises, it has been held in paragraph
no.8.3 of the impugned judgment that plaintiff has proved her
case for personal bonafide and reasonable need of the suit
premises and defendant has not produced sufficient evidence to
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
10/19
contract the same. In light of the aforesaid findings, recorded by
the trial court, suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide impugned
judgment dated 24.9.2022 with a direction to the defendant to
vacate the suit premises within the period of 60 days from the
date of decree, failing which the plaintiff will be entitled to get
the same vacated through the process of the court.
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ opposite party submits
that 13 witnesses were produced on behalf of the plaintiff who
were examined and cross examined and 22 documents were
marked as exhibit 1 to 18 B on behalf of the plaintiff, whereas 7
witnesses were produced on behalf of defendant and 4
documents were produced as exhibit A to C/1 on behalf of the
defendant in support of his claim. Issue No. V, VI and VII were
decided in favour of the plaintiff, at para 13 and 14 of the
judgment, based on oral and documentary evidences. Issue
No.III was not pressed by the defendant which shall be evident
in paragraph 9 at page 15 of the judgment under revision and
accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.IV was
not pressed and Issue No. I & II were also decided in favour of
the plaintiff in para 11 of judgment under revision. So far issue
No. VIII is concerned, the same was decided against the
plaintiff. He submits that based on all documentary and oral
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
11/19
evidences available on record, learned Sub Judge 1" Khagaria
arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has proved her case and is
entitled to evict the defendant from the suit premises
accordingly ordered "the suit is decrees on contest, against
defendant, without cost.
12. He further submits that defendant-petitioner has
preferred the instant civil revision application on the grounds
that the learned trial court has not appreciated the provision of
Section 11(1)(C) of the BBC Act while passing impugned
judgment. Contention of the defendant-petitioner is without any
substance and is not sustainable in the eye of law, for the reason
that in paragraph No.2 of the plaint it was specifically pleaded
that plaintiff has two sons who are not employed properly i.e.
underemployed. Hence, plaintiff had purchased the Schedule I
house from her Stridhan and with financial help of her parents
and her husband with sole purpose to start shop after
reconstructing the same as per requirement of starting business
by her sons. Moreover, learned court below has framed issue
No.VII "whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction of
defendant from the suit premises as described in Schedule I of
the plaint and after analyzing the deposition of PWs and DWs
and on examination of exhibits produced by the plaintiff and
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
12/19
defendants, arrived that a finding at page 13 of the judgment
that their exists relationship of landlord and tenant in between
plaintiff and defendant and that in paragraph no. 8.3 at page no.
14 of the judgment has found that the plaintiff has purchased the
suit premises for their personal and bonafide use i.e. for starting
Computer Training Institute and Computer Shop for
employment of two sons and for engagement of her husband
who was due to retire in near future after reconstructing the suit
premises. P. W.2 Dilip Kumar Sahu has also deposed that after
purchase of the house plaintiff told both the tenants that she has
purchased the house for the purpose of employment of her
husband and sons for opening Computer Training Institute.
Similarly P.W. 3 Kamlesh Kumar Poddar has also deposed that
the plaintiff has purchased house to open the Computer Training
Institute for her two sons. Similar depositions were made by
P.W.7 Asok Kumar Jamaiyar, P.W.8 the plaintiff, P.W.9 Divya
Prakash Jamaiyar.
13. It is further submitted that learned court below in
paragraph No. 8.4 at page 15 of the judgment has considered the
provisions contained in section 11 (1) of the Bihar Building
(L.R. & E.) Control Act and found that the grounds for filing
suit for personal necessity is held proved and the tenant is liable
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
13/19
to be evicted as such the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and accordingly
the issue No. VII was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Next
ground for revision is that the learned Court below has
committed jurisdiction error and material irregularity while
deciding the issue of bona fide requirement against the
defendant and in favour of plaintiff which is palpable incorrect,
the ground mentioned therein has already been discussed while
responding the ground that section 11(1) of BBC Act has not
been appreciated. Based upon exhibits B and C, claim of the
defendant that there does not exists relationship of tenant and
landlord between the defendant and plaintiff has no legs to
stand, since issue No. V deals with this aspect and at page 13 of
the judgment. Learned Court below has arrived at a conclusion
that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant in between
plaintiff and defendant. One of the grounds of revision of
judgment dated 24.9.2022 is that the learned court below has not
applied its mind in regard to legal provision of T.P Act 1882 as
well as BBC Act. In this regard, it is stated that while deciding
Issue No. V at page 13 of the judgment, Section 109 of T.P Act
1882 was considered as well as various decisions of this Hon'ble
court. Learned court below also considered provision contained
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025
14/19
in Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act along with decision of the
Hon'ble Apex court related thereto and thereafter came to a
positive finding that their exists landlord and tenant relationship
between plaintiff and defendant. Learned counsel further
contends that the statement made in paragraph No.8 of the
revision application is partially incorrect. Relationship of
landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant has been
held established. Alleged Mahadanama dated 10.8.2010 is
forged and fabricated document which does not contains the
signature of Uma Shankar Jamaiyar. It is also not a fact that
vendor has received any amount towards alleged Mahadanama
nor have undertaken that on receipt of remaining consideration
amount shall execute sale deed on 28.1.2011. Last ground of the
revision is that during pendency of Title suit No. 89/2011 for
specific performance of contract at the instance of defendants,
the vendor has executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on
01.02.2011which is factually incorrect, in fact, after execution of registered sale deed on 01.02.2011, Title Suit No. 89/2011 for specific performance of contract was filed on 2.9.2011, i.e., after seven months from execution of Sale deed. It is stated that the eviction suit No. 02/2011 was decided on 24.9.2022, whereas Title Suit No. 89/2011 stood dismissed on 30.7.2019. Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025 15/19 Defendant-petitioner has preferred instant Civil Revision application on 07.12.2022, i.e., after much delay of prescribed limitation period under the Indian Limitation Act as required under section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rest and Eviction) Control Act 1982, without filing any limitation petition for condoning the delay, as such, Civil revision application is fit to be dismissed.
14. Heard learned counsel for the defendant/ petitioners and the plaintiff/ respondent as also perused the judgment in question and pleadings filed by the parties.
15. It is settled law that if an eviction suit is filed under section 11(1)(c) of BBC Act, in such suit complicated question of title cannot be decided and court has only to see as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between parties or not. Witnesses have specifically stated regarding bonafide need of plaintiff-opposite party and court below held that plaintiff- opposite party is in bonafide need of disputed shop. Impugned judgment and decree upheld. Reliance can be placed on the decision in case of Rajendra Prasad Sah vs. Basudev Prasad Gupta, 2018 (1) BLJ 30 (PHC).
16. To answer this contention, learned court below has framed Issues no. V, VI and VII which are as follows:-
Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025 16/19 Issue no. V, VI and VII: The main issues are (1) Whether there exists relationship of Landlord and Tenant in between Plaintiffs and Defendant ? (11) Whether the need of Plaintiff of suit premises be personal, reasonable, bona-fide and in good faith ? And (iii) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of eviction of the Defendant from the suit premises as described in schedule-I of the plaint ?
(8.1) The mam point of controversy in the suit is relationship of Landlord and Tenant in between Plantiff and Defendant. According to Plaintiff Defendant is Tenant and Plaintiff is the Landlord of suit premises. Defendant has totally denied this relationship of Landlord and Tenant in between Plaintiff and Defendant Exhibit-1 is Sale Deed No. 618 di 01/02/11 execated by Sri Umashankar Jamaryar in favour of Kumari Kavita Sinha @ Kavita Jamaiyar, w/o Ashok Kumar Jamaiyar, of 770 Square Feet with Khapraposh house situated at Tauzi No. 525, Thana No. 267, Municipal Ward No. 13 Holding No 658, Khata No. 156. Kheshrs No 05Me, North-Road Nagarpalika, South-Gali, East-Cali then Janki Devi, West Ranjeet Prasad Ambastha Exhibit 8 is Receipt No. 53,212 detail 6 of February 2018 of Holding No. 248 sued by Municipal Council Khagarta in favour of Plaintiff Kumari Kavita Sinha Exhibit 8/A is Receipt No 53,211 dated 6 of February 2018 of Holding No. 247 issued by Municipal Council Khagaria in favour of Plaintiff Kumari Kavita Sinha.
17. To decide the aforesaid core issues, learned court below has examined altogether 7 prosecution witnesses, 8 defence witnesses and the principle of Estoppel of Tenant and licensee of person in possession.
18. It appears that on 17 February 2011 when the Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025 17/19 Defendant refused to vacate the Schedule-II property the Plaintiff's husband went to the District Janta Darbar and filed an application to this effect which was forwarded to DCLR, Khagaria to look into the matter and decide the same. Subsequently, the learned DCLR called for report from the CO, Khagaria and after getting the report from the concerned CO, Ordered the CO to get the Suit land vacated from the Defendant and even directed him to seek one Section police force from the SDM Khagaria to maintain law and Order because he felt apprehension of breach of peace from the side of the Defendant.
19. It has also gone through decisions in case of Laxmi Narayan vs Ram Kishan & Others AIR 2015 RAJ p.46 :
Vashu Deo vs Balkishan (2002) 2 SCC 50 and 1989 PLJR 381 and has held that it is clear that Plaintiff Kumari Kavita Sinha has produced sufficient evidence to prove that she is owner of suit premises and has stepped into the shoes of Landlord. Defendant Manmohan Singh is Tenant in the suit premises. So there exists relationship of Landlord and Tenant in between Plaintiff and Defendant. Therefore Issue no- V is decided in favour of Plaintiff.
20. It was the contention of the defendant that both sons Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025 18/19 of the plaintiffs were working in the company on good salary since long past and they are not unemployed as stated by the plaintiff, therefore, alleged need of plaintiff is imaginary and concoction for wrongful gain. In this regard, learned court below has meticulously examined PW 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and DW 1, 3, 4, 5 and considered decisions in case of Sadhu Sharan Sahay & others vs National Seed Corporation Ltd 1989 B.B.C.J. p.126 and AIR 1995 SC 576. The court below has held that it is clear that Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidences for proving their personal, bona fide and reasonable need of the suit shop premises and Defendant has not produced sufficient evidence to contradict the same. Need of Plaintiff of suit shop premises is personal, reasonable, bona fide and in good faith. Issue No. VI is decided in favor of Plaintiff.
21. Learned court below has also taken note of Sec 11(1) of Bihar Building (L.R.&E.) Control Act which states that-
"Notwithstanding... Where a Tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction therefrom except in execution of a decree passed by the court on one or more of the following grounds...". The court below has held that from this provision, it is apparent that if the suit is filed on any ground as mentioned in section 11 of Bihar Building (L.R.&E) Control Patna High Court C.R. No.70 of 2022 dt.15-05-2025 19/19 Act and such ground is proved, the tenant is liable to be evicted.
22. Trial Court after considering oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of parties has held that there is relation of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant and plaintiff has been able to establish that she require suit premises for bonafide personal necessity and has proved her case for personal necessity of suit premises. Defendant/ original petitioner has neither pleaded nor led any evidence on the point of partial eviction. Trial court has found that requirement of plaintiff will not be satisfied by partial eviction. In view of the above mentioned discussions as well as in view of pronouncement of law rendered in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, I do not find any illegality, irregularity and infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.9.2022, passed by learned Sub Judge I, Khagaria in Eviction Suit No. 02/21011.
23. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Shashi
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.5.2025
Transmission Date 19.5.2025