Patna High Court - Orders
Ram Uddeshya Singh @ Ram Udhesh Singh And ... vs Brajesh Kumar And Ors on 13 March, 2026
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.62 of 2016
======================================================
1. Ram Uddeshya Singh @ Ram Udhesh Singh, S/O Late Parmeshwar Singh,
2. Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh Prasad Singh, S/O Late Bhagwat Singh,
3. Musmat Raj Kumari Devi, W/O Late Ram Naresh Singh,
4. Mantu Singh, S/o Late Ram Naresh Singh,
5. Sudhir Singh, S/O Late Ram Naresh Singh,
6. Narendra Kumar Singh,
7. Lakhendra Kumar Singh,
Both Sons of Late Umesh Singh
All residents of Village- Parvesjabad, P.O- Paharichak, P.S- Sonepur,
District- Saran.
8. Sumitra Devi, W/o Umanath Singh, D/o Late Ram Naresh Singh, resident of
Village- Bagahi, P.S- Kopa, District- Saran.
9. Indrawati Devi, W/O Baijnath Singh, D/O Late Bhagwat Singh, resident of
Village- Ekari, P.S.- Ekma, District- Saran.
10. Nanhaki Devi @ Krishna Devi, W/O Suraj Singh, D/O Late Bhagwat Singh,
resident of Village- Garkha, P.S.- Garkha, District- Saran.
11. Mamta Devi, W/O Veer Kunwar Singh, D/O late Ramesh Prasad Singh,
resident of Village- Parvesjabad, P.O.- Paharichak, P.S.- Sonepur, District-
Saran.
12. Baby Kumari, W/O Uday Kumar Singh, D/O Late Umesh Singh.
13. Shanti Devi, widow of Late Umesh Singh,
Both residents of Village- Parvesjabad, P.O- Paharichak, P.S.- Sonepur,
District Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Brajesh Kumar, S/o late Ramdeo Singh,
2. Vijay Kumar Singh, S/O Vasistha Singh,
3. Ram Biraj Devi.
4. Ram Singar Devi,
5. Pramila Devi,
6. Asha Devi,
7. Indu Devi,
All D/O Late Mangal Singh,
All residents of Village- Parvejabad, P.S- Sonepur, District- Saran.
8. Rampari Devi, W/O Sakaldeep Singh D/O Late Basgit Singh, resident of
Village- Afaur, P.S- Khaira, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026
2/10
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocate
Mr. Tusar Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER
11 13-03-2026Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants/appellants against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 12.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Saran at Chapra in Title Appeal No. 31 of 2006.
3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2002 which was filed by the plaintiffs/respondent 1 st set against defendants/appellants/appellants as well as respondent 2nd set only for their eviction on the ground of default-in-payment of rent by the defendants and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiffs for this said suit premises and also for arrears of rents.
4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants is the tenant of the suit premises. The premises, in question, originally belonged to the ancestor of the plaintiffs which is evident from Revisional Survey Khatiyan. The ancestor of the plaintiffs let out the suit premises which is standing over Plot no. 1091 on monthly rent of Rs. 7/- per month in December, Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026 3/10 1938 to the ancestor of the defendants. The ancestor of the defendants were residents of Mauza Barbatta, P.S. Sonepur, District- Saran. The defendants paid rent till 1967. After that whenever rent was asked, they avoided the payment of the same and gave assurance for payment of the same. In September, 1969, it has come to the knowledge that Parmeshwar Singh and Bhagwat Singh got rent receipts in respect of plot no. 1091, 1092 & 1088. Thereafter, Basgit Singh and Mangal Singh, ancestor of the plaintiffs filed objection before the Circle Officer, Sonepur and Jamabandi Correction Case No. 4 of 1970- 71 was registered for correction of Jamabandi and fixation of rent. The Circle Officer sent the record to D.C.L.R., who remanded the same to the Circle Officer. The Circle Officer got influenced by the ancestor of the defendants that Plot no. 1091 area 2 katha, plot no. 1092 area 16 dhurs, total area 2 katha 16 dhurs are in occupation of ancestor of the defendants. It was further stated that plot no. 1088 area 11 dhurs and plot no. 1091 area 19 dhurs were said to be in occupation of Basgit Singh and Mangal Singh and the report was sent to D.C.L.R. The said Basgit Singh and Mangal Singh filed Jamabandi Appeal No. 11 of 1973-74 which was allowed. Against the said order, Bhagwat Singh and Ram Naresh Singh, ancestor of the defendants Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026 4/10 preferred Case No. 198 of 1976-77 before the Commissioner, Tiruhat Division. The matter was ultimately disposed of on the direction of Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2735 of 1999. The Appeal No. 11 of 1973-74 was decided on 14.02.2002 in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants claimed Plot no. 1091 on the basis of oral sale in 1938 from the ancestor of the plaintiff for Rs. 99/-. It is further contended that the ancestor of the defendants were tenant in the said house. Rent of the suit premises till 1999 has become time barred and the plaintiffs were engaged in Jamabandi case, therefore, they could not institute case for realisation of arrears of rent and for eviction from the house from the suit premises. The family of the plaintiffs has increased and they have personal necessity for the suit premises.
5. On summon, defendant nos. 1 to 6 appeared and filed their written statement and defendant nos. 9 to 11 filed their separate written statement and challenged the title of the plaintiffs.
6. The specific case of the defendants is that Parmeshwar Singh being the Karta of joint family of defendant nos. 3 to 7 orally purchased 2 katha of Plot no. 1091 for consideration of Rs. 99/- from east and Plot no. 1092 area 16 Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026 5/10 dhurs from Jhotan Singh and Subhlal Singh and came in possession over the same. After purchase of the said land through oral, Parmeshwar Singh and Bhagwat Singh constructed house over part of the oral purchased plot and adjacent to plot no. 1091. The further case of the defendants is that their ancestor never took house over Plot no. 1091 on rent. The construction made over Plot no. 1091 was made by the ancestor of the defendants. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants or his ancestors never paid any rent as claimed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned trial court after considering the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties as well as materials on record, has held that the plaintiffs are owner of the suit premises and the defendants are residing as a tenant in the suit premises. The defendants themselves accepted that before oral purchase, the plaintiffs/ancestor of the plaintiffs were the owner of the suit property. All the witnesses of the plaintiffs have clearly stated that the defendants were month to month tenant at the monthly rental of Rs. 7/- and rent was not paid since January, 1968 to 2002. The defendants neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence with regard to the payment of any rent. Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026 6/10 Hence, the defendants are defaulter in payment of rent. They are entitled to eviction of the defendants under the The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 ( in short ' The BBC Act'). The plaintiffs disclaimed the rent due from January, 1968 to May, 1999 which is time barred. The plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 7/- since May 1999 till May 2002 and accordingly, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
8. The judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendants/appellants in Title Appeal No. 31 of 2006, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra by the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2016. The said judgment and decree of the learned court below are under challenged in the instant Second Appeal.
9. From the materials available on record, it appears that the learned court of appeal below, which is the final court of facts, after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them came to clear finding that the defendants admitted that before oral purchase by the ancestor of the defendants, the suit property belonged to the the plaintiffs. The defendants failed to prove their claim that they constructed house over the suit land. From perusal of the documentary Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026 7/10 evidence, it appears that the house was existence since before Hall Survey (Revisional Survey of Records of Rights). The findings of the trial court with regard to the suit premises is that the plaintiffs are landlord and the defendants are residing in the suit premises as tenant and the story of oral purchase made by the defendants is not tenable. The learned trial court erred in law with regard to deciding the title of the parties. However, the learned First Appellate Court held that the learned trial court has come to a prima facie finding that the plaintiffs established their ownership over the suit premises and the defendants accepted that the plaintiffs' ancestor was original owner of the suit land before their oral purchase. The learned appellate court further held that when the defendants were residing in the suit premises as admitted by them and the plaintiffs have established their title through their evidence oral as well as documentary. The relationship of landlord and tenant is established beyond doubt. The defendants have miserably failed to establish their case while the plaintiffs have proved their case in accordance with law.
10. On a careful analysis of the impugned judgment, this Court comes to a clear finding that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the premises in the suit. The defendants have Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026 8/10 denied the title of the plaintiffs. It is also admitted case of the defendants that they were residing in the suit premises and the plaintiffs established their title, the relationship of landlord and tenant was established beyond doubt as has been held in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. Ambika Prasad Singh reported in 2023 (2) PLJR 321.
11. In the case of Shamim Ara Naz and Anr. Vs. Md. Quamruddin reported in (1997) 1 PLJR 526, this Court has held that "when the learned court below has come to prima- facie findings that the plaintiff established his ownership over the suit premises then an 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. 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."
12. In the present case, although the defendants /appellants denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed their right as title holder on the basis of oral purchase of the suit Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026 9/10 premises but they have not taken any steps to get their title declared by any competent civil court. The defendants have also denied the plaintiffs' claim of tenancy. The plaintiffs' claim with regard to the tenancy has very well proved through oral evidence as well as documentary evidence.
13. The learned trial court clearly held that the defendants are tenant at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month and there is no assertion or evidence of the defendants that he paid the rent of the suit premises. Therefore, he is defaulter under Section 11 of the BBC Act.
14. Both the courts have concurrently held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs have been able to prove that the defendants are defaulter-in-payment of rent of the suit premises and the plaintiffs have successfully proved their bona fide requirement for the suit premises and it is also admitted fact that the defendants have not paid the rent for the defaulted period. Hence, the learned courts below are quite justified in arriving at the findings with regard to the default and arrears of rent.
15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it finds any question Patna High Court SA No.62 of 2016(11) dt.13-03-2026 10/10 of law much less substantial questions of law involved in this case.
16. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of Admission under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J) premchand/-
U