Patna High Court

Prem Shankar MishraversusSmt. Renu Mishra

Decided: 8 July 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

Holding

The eviction suit is maintainable, a landlord‑tenant relationship is established, and the plaintiff’s claim of personal necessity is bona fide, so the civil revision is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, Prem Shankar Mishra, appealed a 2016 eviction decree under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, claiming he was a co‑sharer, not a tenant, and that the suit was not maintainable. The respondent, Renu Mishra, sought eviction on the ground of bonafide personal necessity to build a house, asserting a landlord‑tenant relationship based on a sale deed and rent receipts. The High Court examined whether the eviction suit was maintainable, whether a landlord‑tenant relationship existed, and whether the plaintiff proved genuine personal necessity. Relying on statutory provisions and precedents, the Court held that the tenancy was established, the BBC Act applied to the tin‑shed structure, and the plaintiff’s personal necessity was bona fide. Consequently, the Court found no error in the lower court’s findings and dismissed the civil revision.

Issues considered

Whether the eviction suit under the BBC Act was maintainable
Whether a landlord‑tenant relationship existed between the parties
Whether the plaintiff proved bonafide personal necessity for eviction
Whether the BBC Act applies to the disputed open land with a tin shed
Whether the lower court’s findings were perverse or erroneous

Legislation cited

Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 — s. 11(1)(c), 14(8), 2(b), 2(f)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 116
Transfer of Property Act — s. 44

Subjects

eviction
landlord-tenant relationship
personal necessity
civil revision
Bihar Buildings Act
title dispute
partition deed
open land
rent control

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.265 of 2016
======================================================
Prem Shankar Mishra, Son of Late Harihar Prasad Mishra, Presently Resident
of Mohalla- Kanhiya, Mishra Pokhar, Ward No. 37, P.S.- Laheryasarai, P.O.-
Laheriyasarai, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Smt. Renu Mishra, Wife of Shri Balram Prasad Mishra, Resident of Mohalla-
Patar, P.S.- Ashok Paper Mill, P.O.- Patar, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Diya Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV ORDER

25 08-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner and

plaintiff/opposite Party.

2. This Civil Revision Application is filed under

Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)

Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as BBC Act), against

the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2016 passed in Eviction

Suit No. 26 of 2005 by the learned Munsif 1st, Darbhanga.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the

plaintiff/opposite party, Smt. Renu Mishra @ Renu Kumari,

filed Eviction Suit No. 26 of 2005 before the learned Munsif

1st, Darbhanga, against the defendant/petitioner, Prem Shankar

Mishra, seeking Eviction from the suit premises at Muhalla-
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
2/24

Balbhadarpur (Kanhiya Mishra Pokhar), Ward No. 37, Naka No.

07, Anchal- Bahadurpur, P.S.- Laheriyasarai, District-

Darbhanga, on the ground of bonafide personal necessity for

construction of a residential house, pleading that the defendant

was a tenant under her vendor, Krishna Kumar Mishra, who had

sold her the premises vide registered sale deed dated

15.02.2004, his own title being traced to a registered partition

deed dated 15.02.1949. The defendant contested the suit,

denying any landlord-tenant relationship and asserting that he

was a co-sharer of the land under the same partition deed and

not a tenant. The impugned order dated 29.06.2016 decreed in

favour of the plaintiff/opposite party, including the existence of

a landlord-tenant relationship, bonafide personal necessity, and

maintainability. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant/petitioner has

preferred the present Civil Revision under Section 14(8) of the

BBC Act before this Hon'ble Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Eviction Suit No. 26 of 2005 was instituted by the

plaintiff/opposite party, Smt Renu Mishra, seeking eviction of

the Defendant/Petitioner on the ground of personal necessity,

i.e., for the construction of a residential house over the contested

property and that partial eviction would not serve the purpose as
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
3/24

stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint. He submits that, admittedly,

as per paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff is a purchaser of

the disputed property under a sale deed dated 29.04.2004,

registered on 05.05.2004, executed by one Krishna Kumar

Mishra, and that as per paragraph 8 of the plaint, the vendor’s

right to sell is traced to a registered partition deed dated

15.02.1949, by virtue of which he is alleged to have come into

exclusive possession of the properties.

4. i. He submits that in the written statement, the

petitioner denied any relationship of landlord and tenant, and

instead asserted that he is a co-sharer and co-owner of the

undivided disputed land along with the plaintiff's vendor and his

Gotiyas, and that the construction covered with tin is his own

residential house. He submits that the partition of the family

property by a registered partition deed dated 15.02.1949 stands

admitted and that no partition took place thereafter; accordingly,

the said partition deed dated 15.02.1949 is an admitted

document, marked as Exhibit 5. The learned counsel submits

that the following points fall for determination:

(I) whether the suit for eviction was at all

maintainable;

(II) whether there existed a relationship of landlord
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
4/24

and tenant between the parties; and

(III) whether the plaintiff was able to prove bonafide

personal necessity and the absence of any alternative

accommodation.

4. ii. On the first point, the learned counsel submits

that the registered partition deed dated 15.02.1949 (marked as

Exhibit 5) constitutes the title document of both the vendor of

the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and shows four executants

representing four branches of a joint family, the first party being

constituted of four sharers, namely Yadunath Narayan Mishra,

Jaggarnath Prasad Mishra, Jagbadhan Prasad Mishra and

Harihar Prasad Mishra, the last of whom is admittedly the father

of the defendant/petitioner. He submits that this establishes that

the petitioner is not a tenant but a sharer of the property,

whereas the vendor, Krishna Kumar Mishra, and his father,

Bhubaneshwar Mishra, are not even parties to the partition deed,

it being only the brother of Bhubaneshwar Mishra, namely

Jagbadhan Mishra, who formed part of the first party. He

submits that, at best, Bhubaneshwar Mishra could be said to

have held some undivided share along with his brother, which

might have devolved upon Krishna Kumar Mishra and his other

heirs.
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
5/24

4. iii. The learned counsel submits that, as per

Schedule-2 of the partition deed, 1 katha 18 dhurs 54 dhurki was

allotted to the aforesaid first party across four plots, being Plot

Nos. 30265, 30266, 30267 and 30269, with separate areas and

directions specified for each plot, and that consequently, the

share of Krishna Kumar Mishra, even if any, along with the

other sharers, was less than ¼ th, that is, a fraction of 8 dhurs,

since his father could have obtained only 4 dhurs as disclosed

by Exhibit 5. He submits that the registered sale deed dated

15.02.2004, marked Exhibit 2, records at column 5 the sale of 8

dhurs of agricultural and residential land to the plaintiff out of

five plots, including Khata No. 720, Plot No. 131/17/89, which

was admittedly not the subject matter of the partition deed dated

15.02.1949; that no separate area or direction of any plot is

specified therein; and that it has not been explained by the

plaintiff as to how much land from which plot was sold to her.

He submits that, even in this deed, the boundary description

records the name of the defendant, Prem Shankar Mishra, which

establishes the defendant's status as a co-sharer of the vendor.

4. iv. The learned counsel further submits that another

significant feature of the sale deed is that it records the sale of

land alone, and makes no mention of any construction,
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
6/24

permanent or temporary, thereon, nor any mention of tenancy of

any person, thereby falsifying the plaintiff's case of the

defendant being a tenant of the plaintiff's vendor and of

purchase of a house standing over the disputed land. He submits

that, even assuming that the vendor, Krishna Kumar Mishra,

was a co-sharer having title over part of the property and, thus,

entitled to sell under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act,

he was not entitled to deliver possession, nor could the

purchaser take physical possession thereof. In this regard, the

learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court reported in 2009 (4) PLJR (SC) 225, and submits that it

has been held therein, at paragraph 11, that the purchaser of a

co-parcener’s share may have a right to file a suit for partition,

but has no right to obtain possession. He accordingly submits

that the only suit maintainable on the basis of the aforesaid

partition deed and sale deed was a suit for partition, and not a

suit for eviction seeking to displace an admitted co-sharer. The

learned counsel further submits that it is evident from the

aforesaid facts that a serious dispute as to title subsists between

the parties, and that the plaintiff has no right to disturb the joint

possession of the petitioner over the lands allotted to the first

party under the partition deed dated 15.02.1949. He relies, in
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
7/24

this connection, upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Patna High

Court reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 148, and submits that it has

been held therein, at paragraph 5, that where a serious dispute of

title exists between the parties, the plaintiff has the option either

of filing a separate suit for partition or of converting the eviction

suit into a title suit.

4. v. He further submits, relying upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1983) 3 SCC 36, that it has

been held therein, at paragraph 14, that for the purpose of

Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act, the expression ‘landlord’ could

mean a person who is the owner of the building and who has a

right to remain in occupation and actual possession of the

building to the exclusion of everyone else, and that it is such a

person alone who can seek to evict the tenant on the ground of a

bonafide requirement for personal occupation. He submits that,

as already demonstrated, the plaintiff's vendor held a share of

less than 4 dhurs, and that too jointly with other sharers, and that

it is settled law that no person can transfer more than what he

himself possesses; the plaintiff, therefore, has no title over the

land in respect of which eviction is sought on the ground of

personal necessity.

4. vi. On the second point, the learned counsel
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
8/24

submits that as per paragraphs 3 and 4 and other paragraphs of

the plaint, the tenancy is alleged to have been created between

the plaintiff's vendor and the defendant/petitioner prior to the

plaintiff’s purchase, and that, admittedly, no tenancy was

created by the plaintiff herself. He submits that the sale deed

dated 05.05.2004 does not disclose even the existence of any

house, much less the existence of any tenant, and that there is no

document to show that any tenancy was created between the

plaintiff or her vendor and the defendant. He submits that such a

relationship cannot be established merely on the basis of false

statements made by witnesses, more so when it is not even

stated as to when such tenancy was created, with whom, and in

what manner; accordingly, there is no evidence whatsoever to

indicate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between

the parties, and the suit must fail on this ground alone. The

learned counsel further submits that it is evident that only open

land, of whatever area, was sold by the plaintiff’s vendor to her,

the sale deed making no mention of any structure thereupon,

and the plaintiff not having alleged construction of any structure

over the said land. He therefore submits that, even assuming,

without admitting, the case of tenancy as set up by the plaintiff,

it is settled law that the provisions of the BBC Act are not
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
9/24

applicable to the facts of the present case. In this regard, he

relies upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in 1993

(1) PLJR 524, and submits that it has been held therein, at

paragraph 6, that the BBC Act has no application with respect to

open land, and that a suit under the said BBC Act will lie only if

a building, as defined thereunder, has been let out to a tenant, in

which event alone a suit for eviction under the BBC Act will

apply. He submits that, in the present case, neither does the sale

deed dated 05.05.2004 disclose the existence of any building,

nor is there any allegation of construction of a building over the

suit land by the plaintiff or her vendor; accordingly, the suit

itself is not maintainable, and no question of a landlord-tenant

relationship arises.

4. vii. On the third point, the learned counsel submits

that the only personal necessity alleged in the plaint is the

construction of a residential house for the plaintiff's family over

the disputed land; however, it is nowhere stated whether any

building map was passed or approved by the competent

authorities, nor is it stated that the plaintiff possesses the

financial capacity to construct such a house, nor whether she has

any residential house elsewhere. He submits that a similar

matter came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
10/24

judgment reported in (1996) 6 SCC 475, wherein it was held

that a mere statement of personal necessity for construction of a

house is neither sufficient nor a sufficient pleading to be relied

upon, and that relevant facts pertaining to such construction

namely, the capacity to build, necessary approvals of the

authorities and grant thereof, and other germane factors must

also be brought on record. He submits that, on all these points,

not only is the plaint silent, but no such material has been

brought on record in the course of evidence either; accordingly,

the plea of personal necessity cannot be said to be bonafide or

made in good faith, but is rather a pretence for ejectment of a

co-sharer in respect of an area exceeding his actual share,

rendering the sale deed itself a nullity, and the plea of personal

necessity therefore fails. The learned counsel lastly submits that,

so far as the question of partial eviction is concerned, the same

is rendered inconsequential, inasmuch as the plaintiff herself

alleges that partial eviction would not serve her purpose, while

the defendant/petitioner asserts that no eviction whatsoever can

be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party

submits that the present Civil Revision Application is not

maintainable, inasmuch as the same has been filed under
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
11/24

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure instead of under

Section 14(8) of the BBC Act, and is, therefore, liable to be

dismissed at its very threshold on the ground of law as well as

facts. He submits that the plaintiff/opposite party instituted the

eviction suit as she is in dire necessity of the suit premises to

reside therein with her family members upon construction of a

house, and also to impart good education to her children, it

being categorically stated that partial eviction of the suit

premises would not fulfil her need. He submits that it is

admitted that the plaintiff/opposite party purchased the suit

premises from her vendor, Krishna Kumar Mishra, vide a

registered sale deed executed on 29.04.2004 and registered on

05.05.2004, and that the defendant/petitioner was a tenant from

before, on a monthly rental of Rs. 100/-, under the plaintiff’s

vendor, and was running a business in the tin shed situated on

the portion of the land in question. He further submits that the

vendor of the plaintiff obtained the said premises, i.e., the land,

through partition by a registered partition (Taksimnama) dated

15.02.1949.

5. i. The learned counsel submits that it is humbly

stated that the vendor of the plaintiff/opposite party, namely

Krishna Kumar Mishra, informed the defendant/petitioner that
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
12/24

the plaintiff was now the owner and that henceforth rent was to

be paid to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff’s husband, on her

behalf, told the defendant to vacate the portion in question; that

upon reminders, the defendant paid rent of Rs. 200/- for two

months and requested extension of time to vacate the premises;

but that the defendant, upon being granted extension of time,

started harassing the plaintiff in various ways with malafide

intention, and finally, on 16.08.2005, refused to vacate the suit

premises. He submits that the plaintiff/opposite party is the

actual owner of the entire suit premises since 05.05.2004, being

the date on which the same was registered in her name by her

vendor.

5. ii. The learned counsel further submits that it is

evident from the impugned judgment and decree that the

plaintiff has been able to prove, by valid evidence, that there

existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

He submits that it is also clear from the facts, evidence, and the

Taksimnama dated 15.02.1949 that the disputed land was

partitioned amongst the families and equal shares were allotted

to each party, and it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff’s vendor

executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, and mutation

has since been effected in her name. He submits that, as per the
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
13/24

principle laid down through a catena of judgments of this

Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, in an eviction

suit, the serious question of title over the suit land is not

required to be looked into at all once it is established that a

relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties.

He submits that the land in question has already been mutated in

the name of the opposite party, and that, moreover, the

defendant/petitioner never opted for cancellation of the said

registered sale deed dated 05.05.2004.

5. iii. He submits that the pleadings of the parties, as

well as the issues proposed by them, were fully considered by

the learned trial Court, wherein eight issues were framed for

adjudication of the suit, and Issue Nos. III, IV and V were

decided in favour of the plaintiff/opposite party. He submits that

Issue No. VI, regarding partial eviction, was also decided in

favour of the plaintiff, and Issue Nos. I, II, VII and VIII,

regarding maintainability of the suit, cause of action, and other

reliefs, were concluded by the trial Court in favour of the

plaintiff, holding that the suit as filed is maintainable and that

the plaintiff has a valid cause of action. The learned counsel

submits that it is a well-settled principle of law that the Court is

not required to go into complicated questions of title in an
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
14/24

eviction suit, and that all such questions of title can only be

looked into in a separate title suit; the court is required to

examine only incidentally the title of the plaintiff, prima facie,

with regard to the suit premises, for the limited purpose of

ascertaining the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.

5. iv. He submits that it is well settled by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in D. Satyanarayan v. P. Jagdish, reported in 1987

(4) SCC 424, and in State of A.P. and Ors. v. D. Raghukul

Pershad (D) by LRs and Ors., reported in 2012 (8) SCC 584,

that a tenant who has been let into possession by the landlord

cannot deny the landlord’s title, however defective, so long as

he has not openly surrendered possession to his landlord; in

other words, a tenant who is in possession of the demised

premises is estopped from questioning the landlord’s title so

long as he does not surrender possession to the landlord. The

learned counsel further submits that in Chandradeo Kumar @

Jawaharlal v. Shri Krishna Prasad and Ors., reported in 2010

(3) BBCJ V-75, this Hon'ble Court held that the Trial Court has

to go into the question of title and ownership of the plaintiff

over the suit property only incidentally, and not exhaustively,

other than for ascertaining the relationship of landlord and

tenant between the parties as well as the bonafide personal
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
15/24

requirement of the suit premises.

5. v. He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Jyoti

Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal, reported in 2025 (5) BLJ SC 203, has

held that it is trite law that in a suit for eviction, the proof of

ownership of the tenanted premises is not required to be as

strictly examined as in a suit for declaration of title. The learned

counsel further submits that this Hon'ble High Court, in Aditya

Raj v. Kumari Kavita Sinha, S.L.P.(C) No. 25110 of 2025,

decided on 19/05/2025 (SC), dismissed the civil revision

holding that it is settled law that where an eviction suit is filed

under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act, complicated questions of title

cannot be decided in such a suit, and the Court has only to see

whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties. He submits that the Hon'ble Patna High

Court, in Som Nath Mukherjee v. Atul Kumar Sinha, reported in

2025 (6) B.L.J. 438, dismissed the revision application, holding,

inter alia, that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties, and, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and Ors. v. M.

Chinniyan and Anr., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 296, submits that

the revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act is

circumscribed by limitation, and the revisional Court is only
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
16/24

required to see whether the order for eviction is according to

law or not.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties, and the impugned order, the following

points for determination arise in the present civil revision, which

are as follows:

a) Whether the suit for eviction was at all

maintainable?

b) Whether there existed a relationship of landlord

and tenant between the parties?

c) Whether the plaintiff was able to prove bonafide

personal necessity and the absence of any alternative

accommodation?

On the point no. (a)

7. After considering the submissions and perusal of

the judgment and order as impugned, this Court finds that on the

issue of maintainability, it relies on the case of Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC

78, wherein it was stated:

“45……….The consideration for
examination of the evidence by the High
Court in revisional jurisdiction under these
Acts is confined to find out that finding of
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
17/24

facts recorded by the Court/Authority below
is according to law and does not suffer from
any error of law. A finding of fact recorded
by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has
been arrived at without consideration of the
material evidence or such finding is based
on no evidence or misreading of the
evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if
allowed to stand, it would result in gross
miscarriage of justice, is open to correction
because it is not treated as a finding
according to law. In that event, the High
Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction under the above Rent Control
Acts shall be entitled to set aside the
impugned order as being not legal or
proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy
itself the correctness or legality or propriety
of any decision or order impugned before it
as indicated above. However, to satisfy
itself to the regularity, correctness, legality
or propriety of the impugned decision or the
order, the High Court shall not exercise its
power as an appellate power to re-
appreciate or re-assess the evidence for
coming to a different finding on facts.
Revisional power is not and cannot be
equated with the power of reconsideration
of all questions of fact as a court of first
appeal. Where the High Court is required to
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
18/24

be satisfied that the decision is according to
law, it may examine whether the order
impugned before it suffers from procedural
illegality or irregularity.”
It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this

Court under Section 14(8) of the BBC Act, is narrow and

supervisory in character. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.

Dilbahar Singh, supra, has held that the revisional court cannot

function as a second Court of first appeal. This principle has

been applied by this Court directly to revisions under Section

14(8) of the BBC Act in Md. Ehsam Rasul v. Munni Devi, 2016

(4) PLJR 20 (paras 6-7), and reaffirmed in Dilip Kumar

Agrawal v. Kamakhya Prasad & Anr., CR. 172 of 2018 (Patna

High Court, decided 17.02.2021), wherein this Court, upon

finding the Trial Court’s findings on bonafide personal necessity

to be in accordance with law and based on due appreciation of

evidence, declined to interfere in the exercise of its revisional

jurisdiction under Section 14(8). Accordingly, this Court is

empowered under Section 14(8) of the BBC Act only to

examine the legality of the order passed by the lower court and

not to extensively deal with the issue of the title of the suit

property.
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
19/24

8. On perusal of the registered partition deed, it is

evident that the disputed land has been partitioned in between

the families and equal share have been allotted to each one but

so far as dispute raised by the defendant/petitioner for the

allotment of the eastern and western portion on land is not clear

but as it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff/opposite party’s

vendor has executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/opposite

party and mutation has been done in her name. As laid down in

a recent case, Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal & Anr., 2025 INSC

1099, in a suit for eviction, the proof of ownership of the

tenanted premises is not to be strictly looked at as in a suit for

declaration of title. Previously, in Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath

& Ors, (1976) 4 SCC 184, it was held:

“29………..the relation between the parties

being that of landlord and tenant, only the
landlord could terminate the tenancy and
institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in
such a suit it estopped from questioning the
title of the landlord under Section 116 of the
Evidence Act. The tenant cannot deny that
the landlord had title to the premises at the
commencement of the tenancy. Under the
general law, in a suit between landlord and
tenant, the question of title to the leased
property is irrelevant.”
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
20/24

Additionally, in Anar Devi (Smt.) v. Nathu Ram,

(1994) 4 SCC 251, it was held

“12. Indeed, the said doctrine of tenant's

estoppel, finds statutory recognition
in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, for short 'the Evidence Act', in that, it
states that 'no tenant of immovable
property, or person claiming through such
tenant, shall during the continuance of the
tenancy, be permitted to deny that the
landlord of such tenant had, at the
beginning of the tenancy, a title to such
immovable property.
13. ……. Ever since, the accepted position
is that Section 116 of the Evidence Act
applies and estops even a person already in
possession as a tenant under one landlord
from denying the title of his subsequent
landlord when once he acknowledges him
as his landlord by attainment or conduct.
Therefore, a tenant of immovable property
under landlord who becomes a tenant under
another landlord by accepting him to be the
owner who had derived title from the
former landlord, cannot be permitted to
deny the latter's title, even when he is
sought to be evicted by the latter on a
permitted ground.”
9. Accordingly, in light of the above factual scenario
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
21/24

and judgements, it is crystal clear that in an eviction suit, the

serious question of title over the suit land is not looked into

extensively once it is established that a relationship of landlord

and tenant exists, and thereby the present eviction suit is

maintainable.

On the point no. (b)

10. For deciding the question as to the existence of a

relationship of landlord and tenant, it is necessary to examine

certain provisions of the BBC Act. It is humbly argued by the

learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner that the disputed

property is an open land with a small tin shade, and thereby it

does not come under the ambit of the BBC Act. Under Section

2(b) of the BBC Act, “Building” means any building, or hut or a

part of the building or hut, let or to be let, separately for

residential or non-residential purposes and includes-

(i) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any,

appurtenant to such building or hut or part of such building or

hut, and

(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in

such building or hut or part of building or hut.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is also

evident that the tin shade was present on the disputed land,
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
22/24

which is sufficient to bring it within the definition of a

“building” so as to attract the applicability of the BBC Act.

11. From the impugned order, it appears that the

plaintiff/opposite party also examined her vendor to ascertain

the very fact of the landlord and tenant relationship. It is the

duty of the plaintiff/opposite party to establish her case, and in

this very case, the plaintiff has been able to produce all the

relevant facts to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant.

The documents, particularly the rent receipt (Exhibit-4), read

with the tax receipts (Exhibits 3 & 3A), are sufficient to

establish, prima facie, the existence of the landlord-tenant

relationship between the parties.

12. Under Section 2(f) of the BBC Act, “Landlord”

includes the person who for the time being is receiving or is

entitled to receive, the rent of the building, whether on his own

account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of

for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee,

executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so

receive the rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building

were let to a tenant. From the perusal of Exhibit 4, which is the

rent receipt filed by the plaintiff/opposite party, it appears that

the defendant/petitioner was paying rent. On the sale of the suit
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
23/24

property vide agreement dated 05.05.2004 executed by Krishna

Kumar Mishra in favour of the plaintiff/opposite party, all the

rights and interests accordingly passed to the plaintiff/opposite

party. As per Exhibit 6, the plaintiff/opposite party has also

produced mutation orders in her name, which again strengthens

her claim as the landlord.

13. Once such a relationship stands established, it is

not necessary for this Hon’ble Court to enter into a detailed

inquiry into the question of title over the suit property, and the

defendant/petitioner, having acknowledged the said relationship

through rent receipts, is estopped from disputing the same or

setting up an independent title. Accordingly, the suit is

maintainable, and from the facts of the cases and evidence

produced on record, the relationship between the

plaintiff/opposite party and the defendant/petitioner as landlord

and tenant is duly established.

On the point no. (c)

14. On the issue of deciding the question of personal

necessity and whether partial eviction is insufficient to fulfil the

needs of the plaintiff/opposite party, para 13 and 14 of the plaint

of the plaintiff/opposite party clearly shows that the

plaintiff/opposite party has to construct house and also for the
Patna High Court C.R. No.265 of 2016(25) dt.08-07-2026
24/24

purpose of imparting education to her children she requested the

defendant/petitioner to vacate the suit premises. The same is a

bonafide and genuine need as the landlord is the best judge of

his own requirement, and it is not open to the tenant to dictate

how the landlord should use his property or arrange his family’s

needs as held in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta,

(1999) 6 SCC 222; Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC

353). The need for adequate space for children’s education has

been specifically recognised as a valid ground for eviction in

Ajay Mahasukhlal Shah v. Chandrakant Babulal Shah (Bombay

HC, 2023). The plaintiff/opposite party's requirement is

therefore bonafide, and the defendant is liable to be evicted

accordingly. Accordingly, it can be said that the

plaintiff/opposite party's requirement would not be fulfilled by

partial eviction.

15. This Court does not find any error or infirmity in

the order passed by the Learned Munsif 1st, Darbhanga requiring

any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision is dismissed.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.