Pramod Kumar AgrawalversusSanjay Kumar Agrawal

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                        CIVIL REVISION No.12 of 2023
                  ======================================================
                  Pramod Kumar Agrawal Son of late Haridwari Lal Agrawal, Resident of Flat
                  No. 301, Om Complex, S.P. Verma road, Police Station- Kotwali, Town and
                  District- Patna, Pin Code 800001

                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
            1.    Sanjay Kumar Agrawal Son of Late Hari Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Flat
                  No. 304, Om Vihar Apartment, Kadamkuan, Town and District Patna-
                  800003
            2.    Ram Autar Agrawal Son of Late Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Resident of Flat
                  No. A-1, 502, Nutan Tower, P.O. and P.S. Kankarbagh, Town and District
                  Patna.

                                                            ... ... Respondent/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s   :    Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
                  For the Respondent/s   :    Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate
                                              Mr. Manjeet Kumar Roy, Advocate
                                              Mr.Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Kr Rai, Advocate
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
                  MALVIYA
                                         CAV ORDER

18   06-02-2026                 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as

                    learned Counsel for the respondent.

                                2. This Civil Revision application has been filed

                    against the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Sub-

                    Judge 1st-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Patna

                    (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Eviction Suit No. 98

                    of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the

                    petitioner/defendant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

                    Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for dismissal of the

                    suit, as due to subsequent development, the suit became
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                             2/19




          incompetent and not fit to proceed, has been rejected.

                       3. The fact of the case, in brief, is that plaintiffs

          (opposite parties) filed the eviction suit asserting that the

          defendant (petitioner) was inducted as a monthly tenant in

          respect of a shop premises situated on the 2 nd floor of Khetan

          Super Market, Patna, at a monthly rent of Rs.11,000/-, under the

          previous landladies, namely Smt. Savita Agrawal, Smt. Lalita

          Devi and Smt. Munni Devi, who were the absolute owners in

          possession of the suit premises. According to the plaint, the

          defendant regularly paid rent up to January 2010 but thereafter

          defaulted       from      February        2010      onwards,   resulting   in

          accumulation of arrears. During the subsistence of the tenancy

          and the period of default, the previous landladies transferred the

          suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed

          dated 24.08.2011, along with the right to realise and recover the

          arrears of rent. It is further alleged that the defendant was duly

          informed of the said transfer and was called upon to pay the

          arrears and continue payment of rent to the plaintiffs, but he

          failed and refused to do so. The plaintiffs also claimed bona

          fide personal requirement of the suit premises, stating that they

          were      carrying      on     their      textile   business   from   rented

          accommodation in the same building under financial pressure
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                             3/19




          and required the suit premises for their own use and occupation,

          there being no other suitable or alternative accommodation

          available. On these assertions, the suit was instituted seeking

          eviction of the defendant on the grounds of default in payment

          of rent and personal necessity, along with recovery of arrears of

          rent amounting to Rs.2,09,000/- for the period from February

          2010 to August 2011.

                       4. The petitioner/defendant appeared before the

          learned Trial Court and filed written statement contesting the

          suit in its entirety, raising preliminary objections regarding

          maintainability, limitation, valuation and payment of court fee,

          and alleging suppression and misstatement of material facts by

          the plaintiffs. It was specifically denied that the plaintiffs were

          the landlords of the suit premises or that the defendant was a

          defaulter in payment of rent. It was stated that rent had been

          regularly paid to the erstwhile landladies, who had accepted the

          same and issued receipts up to March 2011, and that upon their

          refusal to receive rent thereafter, the defendant continued to

          tender rent by money order, both to the previous landowners

          and subsequently to the plaintiffs, which was also refused. The

          defendant further disputed the genuineness and validity of the

          registered sale deed dated 24.08.2011, alleging it to be a sham
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                             4/19




          and collusive document executed without consideration, and

          contended that the plaintiffs had no right to claim arrears of rent

          for any period prior to the alleged purchase. The plea of bona

          fide personal necessity was also emphatically denied on the

          ground that the plaintiffs owned several other shops in Khetan

          Market itself, which were more suitable and sufficient to meet

          any alleged requirement, and that the suit had been instituted

          with a mala fide intention to forcibly enhance rent and evict the

          defendant. Moreover, the defendant asserted that there was

          neither any default in payment of rent nor any genuine personal

          necessity, and stated that the suit was liable to be dismissed

          with compensatory costs.

                       5. During pendency of the Eviction Suit No.98 of

          2011, the petitioner/defendant filed a petition under Section 151

          of the CPC before the learned Trial Court, asserting a

          subsequent development, namely that plaintiff no.1/respondent

          no.2, had sold and transferred his alleged 50% share in the suit

          premises in favour of the defendant by a registered sale deed

          dated 09.09.2022. On the strength of the said transaction, the

          defendant claimed to have become a co-owner of the suit

          premises along with plaintiff no.2, Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, and

          submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant between
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                             5/19




          the parties stand extinguished. It was, thus, pleaded that the

          eviction suit had become incompetent and infructuous, and was

          liable to be dismissed in view of the subsequent change in facts

          and circumstances of the case.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case

          and analysing the materials available on record, the learned

          Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein

          under Section 151 of the CPC by the impugned order dated

          30.11.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the

          present civil revision challenging the legality and propriety of

          the impugned order.

                       7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant

          assailed the findings of the learned Trial Court and submitted

          that the impugned order suffers from perversity, illegality and

          thereby not sustainable in eyes of law. It is submitted that the

          shop premises in question, the detail description of which is

          fully described in Schedule-1 of the plaint, belonged to the

          Respondent nos. 1 and 2 jointly, who are not related to each

          other rather, they are from two separate families, and, out of

          convenience, they have purchased the property in question

          jointly with their equally contributed funds. It is further

          submitted that both the opposite parties were jointly holding the
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                             6/19




          said property, and the petitioner was continuing in that shop as a

          tenant from before. As such, the petitioner became the tenant of

          the opposite parties and continued to pay 50% of the rent to one

          owner i.e., Respondent no. 1, and 50% to other owner i.e.,

          Respondent no. 2.

                       7.i. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

          contended that while the eviction suit was being contested, a

          subsequent        development         occurred   during   its   pendency,

          inasmuch as one of the co-owners, namely Respondent no.2,

          sold his 50% undivided share in the suit premises to the

          petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 09.09.2022. It is

          submitted that upon such purchase, the petitioner stepped into

          the shoes of the said co-owner and thereby acquired ownership

          to the extent of 50% in the suit premises, becoming a joint

          owner along with the remaining co-owner, and consequently,

          the continuance of the eviction proceedings was rendered

          untenable.

                       7.ii. It is further submitted that consequent upon the

          sale of the said share by the Respondent no.2, the said opposite

          party ceased to be either the owner or the landlord of the suit

          premises and, therefore, had no subsisting right to claim rent

          from the petitioner. It is submitted that since the eviction suit
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                             7/19




          had been instituted jointly by Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 on

          the grounds of default and personal necessity, the continuance

          of the suit in its present form became infructuous and

          unsustainable in law. It is further contended that a decree of

          eviction could not be granted at the instance of one co-owner

          against another co-owner by treating the latter as a tenant in

          respect of the same property.

                       7.iii. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of

          the aforesaid averments, placed reliance on the decision of the

          Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal

          Sharma & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1113, to submit that

          where an eviction suit is instituted on the ground of personal

          necessity, the landlord must continue to retain title and interest

          in the suit property throughout the pendency of the proceedings.

          It is submitted that if, during the course of litigation, the

          landlord’s title or interest in the property stands extinguished,

          the suit cannot be maintained or continued thereafter. Learned

          counsel further urged that even at the appellate stage, being a

          continuation of the suit, the Court is competent to take judicial

          notice of such subsequent events and, upon cessation of the

          landlord’s interest, dismiss the suit and set aside the decree

          passed thereunder.
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                             8/19




                       7.iv. He further placed reliance on the judgment of

          Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Shipping Corporation Of India

          Ltd v. Machado Brothers & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC

          2093 where it has been held that

                                          “a court before which a suit is
                                   pending has inherent power under Section
                                   151 to make suitable order to prevent the
                                   abuse of the process and to dismiss the suit
                                   after being satisfied if by the subsequent
                                   event suit has become infructuous and it is
                                   duty of the court to take such action as is
                                   necessary in the interest of justice which
                                   included disposing of infructuous litigation.
                                   It has further been held that it is open to the
                                   parties concerned to make an application
                                   under Section 151 to bring to the notice of
                                   the court the facts and circumstances which
                                   have made the pending litigation
                                   infructuous.”
                       7.v. Moreover, under the aforesaid facts and

          circumstances, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

          the suit for eviction filed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2

          jointly to get a decree of eviction against the petitioner and

          during pendency of the suit one of them transferred his 50%

          share in the property in question in favour of the petitioner

          himself, then it will not leave any right with the Opposite Party,

          who has sold his 50% share to get a decree of eviction against

          the petitioner who is now a co-owner of the said property in
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                             9/19




          place of one of the owners and, has made the suit incompetent

          and infructuous, absolutely not fit to be decreed with a decree

          of eviction against the petitioner who himself is a co-owner

          now.

                       7.vi. Lastly, it is submitted that this Civil Revision

          application is fit to be allowed, the impugned order is fit to be

          set aside, and the suit is required to be held infructuous,

          ineffective and is thereby liable to be dismissed.

                       8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite

          parties/plaintiffs favored the impugned judgment and submitted

          that the eviction suit was filed for eviction on the grounds of

          personal necessity and default in payment of rent. It is

          submitted that the petitioner had admitted that earlier he used to

          pay rent to the vendor of the opposite parties but as soon as it

          came to his knowledge that opposite parties had purchased the

          suit property, he started sending the rent amount to them

          through money-order, therefore, the relationship of landlord and

          tenant can explicitly be established through such transactions. It

          is further submitted that after the respondent no.2 executed the

          registered sale deed for the undecided half-share in favour of

          petitioner, the petitioner filed an application on 21.09.2022,

          praying therein that he purchased half of the share in the suit
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                            10/19




          property so, due to this subsequent development, tenancy has

          been ceased and prayed for dismissal of the suit with ulterior

          motive. He further submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly

          dismissed the application holding that it is not maintainable and

          by getting undecided half share the tenancy is not terminated.

                       8.i. Learned counsel for the respondents has put his

          reliance on the case of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. v. Bibi

          Husn Bano & Ors., reported in AIR 2005 SC 2877, where it

          has been settled that “by getting half share of the suit premises

          tenancy will not terminate and the tenant has to handover the

          possession to the plaintiff if the tenant had acquired any right by

          virtue of sale executed by Co-sharer, he can file a separate Suit

          for determination of his share”.

                       8.ii. Learned counsel for the respondent further relied

          on T. Lakshmipathi & Ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy & Ors.,

          reported in AIR 2003 SC 3983 wherein it was held by the

          Hon’ble Apex Court that a lessee who has taken assignment of

          the right of a co-owner, the lessor cannot successfully raise the

          plea of determination of tenancy on the ground of merger of his

          lease estate in that of the estate of the landlord. It is thus, clear

          that there is no substance in the contention of the learned

          counsel for the petitioner that in the case on hand, it should
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                            11/19




          have been held that the tenancy stood determined and the

          application of the respondents for eviction of the tenant to

          deposit the rent in arrears should have been dismissed.

                       8.iii. Further, learned counsel for respondent relied on

          the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gajara Vishnu Gosavi

          v. Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble & Others, reported in (2009)

          10 SCC 654, wherein it has been held that “purchaser of a co-

          sharer undivided interest in joint family property is not entitled

          to possession of what he had purchased, he has a right to sue for

          partition of the property and asked for allotment”

                       8.iv. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents

          put his reliance on the case of Rejendra Tiwary v. Basudeo

          Prasad reported in AIR 2002 SC 136 wherein the Hon’ble

          Supreme Court has held that existence of relationship of

          landlord or tenant between the parties is sine qua non for

          granting any relief. The question of title of the parties to the suit

          premises is not relevant and is beyond the scope of Court

          exercising jurisdiction under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and

          Eviction) Control Act, 1982. Further to substantiate his case,

          learned counsel submitted that in a similar circumstance, the

          Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Miscellaneous No. 55

          of 2020 has followed the same principle given in T.
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                              12/19




          Lakshmipathi (supra) and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra),

          and has dismissed the case of the petitioner/defendant for

          dismissal of the suit. He further submitted that it is crystallised

          that the purchaser of an unpartitioned share from a co-sharer

          during pendency of the Eviction Suit cannot claim his right title

          in an Eviction Suit, and remedy is available for filing of a

          Partition Suit.

                       8.v. Learned counsel for the respondents further

          submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that the existence

          of the relationship of landlord and tenant is to be examined with

          reference to the date of institution of the suit, and in the present

          case,     the     tenancy      of     the     petitioner   stood    admitted,

          notwithstanding the subsequent refusal to accept rent tendered

          by him. It is submitted that once the tenancy is admitted, the

          execution of a sale deed in respect of an undivided share by a

          co-sharer in favour of the tenant during the pendency of the suit

          is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and does not bring the

          eviction proceedings to an end. It is, therefore, urged that the

          impugned        order      suffers     from     no   infirmity     warranting

          interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and that the

          instant civil revision is liable to be dismissed.

                       9. Having considered the rival submissions advanced
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                            13/19




          on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials available

          on record, the point for determination before this Court in the

          present civil revision is “whether the impugned order passed by

          the learned Trial Court, rejecting the plea of the petitioner

          founded on the alleged subsequent transfer of an undivided

          share in the suit premises, suffers from any jurisdictional error,

          illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference

          by this Court in exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction

          under Section 115 of the CPC?”

                       10. At the outset, it is apposite to delineate the scope

          and ambit of this Court under Section 115 of the CPC. The

          revisional jurisdiction is a limited and supervisory jurisdiction,

          which can be exercised only where the subordinate court has

          either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to

          exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its

          jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is well-

          settled that Section 115 CPC does not confer upon the High

          Court the power to re-appreciate evidence or to substitute its

          own findings of fact for those recorded by the learned Trial

          Court. Interference is warranted only when the impugned order

          suffers from a patent jurisdictional error, perversity, or

          manifests a grave miscarriage of justice.
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                            14/19




                       11. Notably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.

          Lakshmipathi (supra) and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra) has

          authoritatively settled the legal position that the purchaser of an

          undivided and unpartitioned share from a co-sharer during the

          pendency of eviction proceedings cannot assert or enforce such

          title in an eviction suit. The Apex Court has also consistently

          held that questions relating to partition, demarcation or

          declaration of specific ownership rights fall outside the scope of

          summary eviction proceedings, and the appropriate remedy for

          such a purchaser lies in instituting a separate suit for partition

          before the competent civil forum.

                       12. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce the bare

          provision of Section 111 (d) of the Transfer of Property Act,

          1882. It is reproduced hereinunder:

                                                  “111. Determination of lease.
                                            —A lease of immoveable property
                                            determines—
                                                       (a)xxx
                                                       (b)xxx
                                                       (c)xxx
                                                   (d) in case the interests of the
                                            lessee and the lessor in the whole of
                                            the property become vested at the
                                            same time in one person in the same
                                            right:”
                       13. It is pertinent to note that the law is well settled
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                            15/19




          with respect to the doctrine of merger when to be applied with

          respect to cases as such one in hand. Under Section 111(d) of

          the Transfer of Property Act, a merger occurs only when the

          entire interest of the landlord and the entire interest of the tenant

          merge into one person. If the tenant only acquires a 50% share,

          they are still considered a tenant in the eyes of the other 50%

          owner. Moreover, in a detailed and firmly reasoned judgment,

          the Delhi High Court in Juglal Ram Chander v. Surinder Pal

          Jain reported in 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1315 upheld an eviction

          order against a tenant who had tried to claim ownership of the

          rented premises during the pendency of eviction proceedings by

          purchasing the undivided share of the landlord’s sister. The

          Hon’ble Court dismissed revision and affirmed the eviction

          decree in favour of landlord citing bona fide requirement of the

          premises.

                       14. It is also relevant to reproduce the bare provision

          of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which

          envisages provision with respect to transfer of property when a

          litigation is pending. It is reproduced hereinunder:

                                              52. Transfer of property pending
                                   suit relating thereto. During the pendency
                                   in any Court having authority within the
                                   limits of India excluding the State of Jammu
                                   and Kashmir or established beyond such
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                            16/19




                                   limits by the Central Government of any suit
                                   or proceedings which is not collusive and in
                                   which any right to immoveable property is
                                   directly and specifically in question, the
                                   property cannot be transferred or otherwise
                                   dealt with by any party to the suit or
                                   proceeding so as to affect the rights of any
                                   other party thereto under any decree or
                                   order which may be made therein, except
                                   under the authority of the Court and on such
                                   terms as it may impose.
                                              Explanation. For the purposes of
                                   this section, the pendency of a suit or
                                   proceeding shall be deemed to commence
                                   from the date of the presentation of the
                                   plaint or the institution of the proceeding in
                                   a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to
                                   continue until the suit or proceeding has
                                   been disposed of by a final decree or order
                                   and complete satisfaction or discharge of
                                   such decree or order has been obtained, or
                                   has become unobtainable by reason of the
                                   expiration of any period of limitation
                                   prescribed for the execution thereof by any
                                   law for the time being in force.


                       15. In furtherance thereto, it is explicit that if a tenant

          purchases a share of the property during the pendency of an

          eviction lawsuit, the suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and

          that transaction is subject to the court's final decision, and it

          cannot be used to defeat the eviction proceedings. However, the

          law is well-settled on point that a tenant cannot unilaterally

          extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship by purchasing the
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                            17/19




          undivided share of a co-owner, especially when the eviction

          petition had already been instituted. It has been made clear by

          the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra)

          that any one co-owner is competent to file an eviction petition

          without requiring the consent or affidavit of other co-owners,

          unless such co-owners actively oppose the action.

                       16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

          the present case, it emerges that the 50% share in the suit

          property claimed to have been transferred in favour of the

          petitioner by respondent no.2 through the registered sale deed

          dated 09.09.2022 is an undivided and unspecified share, without

          any demarcation of the particular portion of the premises. While

          it is not in dispute that the petitioner has acquired title and

          interest to the extent of an undivided half share in the suit

          property, the specific portion that has allegedly vested in his

          favour remains indeterminate. Consequently, the acquisition of

          such partial and undivided interest does not, by itself,

          extinguish the existing relationship of landlord and tenant in

          respect of the remaining portion of the premises, nor does it

          confer upon the petitioner any exclusive right to occupy a

          defined part thereof. In the absence of any clear demarcation,

          the petitioner continues to hold the status of a tenant in respect
Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                            18/19




          of the balance portion not covered by his ownership claim and

          remains amenable to eviction in accordance with law. In view

          of the complexities involved and the limited scope of an

          eviction proceeding, the questions relating to partition,

          demarcation or declaration of title over a specific portion of the

          suit property cannot be adjudicated in the present suit and may

          be pursued by the petitioner before an appropriate forum.

                       17. This Court finds that the decisions relied upon by

          the learned counsel for the petitioner do not suffice to advance

          his case in the facts and circumstances of the present matter.

          The said authorities were rendered in situations where title or

          interest of the landlord stood wholly extinguished, thereby

          affecting the very substratum of the eviction proceedings. In the

          present case, however, the petitioner has acquired only an

          undivided and unpartitioned share in the suit property during

          the pendency of the eviction suit, which neither determines the

          specific portion of the premises nor brings an end to the

          subsisting landlord-tenant relationship in respect of the

          remaining share. The settled position of law is that questions

          relating to partition or declaration of title cannot be gone into in

          an eviction suit and the remedy, if any, lies before the

          appropriate civil forum. Thus, the precedents cited on behalf of
           Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2023(18) dt.6-02-2026
                                                       19/19




                     the petitioner do not suffice to warrant interference with the

                     impugned order.

                                  18. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law

                     and facts and circumstance of the case, the learned Trial Court

                     rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner seeking dismissal of

                     the eviction suit on the basis of subsequent acquisition of an

                     undivided share, and no jurisdictional error or material

                     irregularity can be attributed to the impugned order warranting

                     interference by this Court.

                                  19. Accordingly, the present civil revision is

                     dismissed.



                                           (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Mayank/-

U