Patna High Court
Mritunjay KumarversusShri Kumar Avinash @ Abinash Prasad
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The trial court correctly found that the co‑owner landlord had bona‑fide personal necessity for the premises and that the eviction decree was lawful, so the civil revision is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, tenants of two commercial shops in a building owned by the respondents, challenged an eviction decree dated 29‑03‑2023 that ordered them to vacate within 60 days. The respondents, a co‑owner of the property, claimed bona‑fide personal necessity to use the premises for a showroom after completing an MBA and caring for his widowed mother. The trial court held that a landlord‑tenant relationship existed, the suit was maintainable despite the non‑joinder of the mother, and the landlord’s personal necessity was genuine, rejecting the tenant’s claim of partial eviction. The petitioners argued the suit was barred by estoppel, that the landlord was a minor when the tenancy began, and that the decree ignored the proviso on partial eviction. The High Court, applying Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and precedents, found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s findings and dismissed the civil revision, affirming the eviction order.
Issues considered
- Whether a landlord‑tenant relationship existed under the Bihar Buildings Act between the co‑owner landlord and the tenant.
- Whether the non‑joinder of the mother (co‑owner) rendered the suit defective.
- Whether the eviction suit was maintainable and not barred by estoppel, waiver or limitation.
- Whether the landlord’s claim of bona‑fide personal necessity was established.
- Whether the trial court was required to consider partial eviction under the proviso to Section 11(1)(c).
- Whether the decree was perverse or illegal warranting interference under Section 14(8).
- Whether a co‑owner can sue for eviction without the consent of other co‑sharers.
- Whether the tenant bore the burden of proving that partial eviction would satisfy the landlord’s requirement.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 — s. 11(1)(c) proviso, 14(8), 15, 5
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115
Subjects
- eviction
- personal necessity
- landlord‑tenant
- Bihar Buildings Act
- civil revision
- partial eviction
- co‑ownership
- non‑joinder
- bona fide necessity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.83 of 2023
======================================================
Mritunjay Kumar, aged about 49 years, Male, Son of Sri Ramji Prasad,
Resident of Village-Mandi, P.O.-Mari, P.S. and District-Nalanda, at Present
running Shop in the Name and Style of M/S Niwas Telecom, Saraswati
Complex, Bhikhna Pahari Mor, P.O.-Bankipur, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna.
... ...Defendant- Petitioner/s
Versus
Shri Kumar Avinash @ Abinash Prasad, Son of Late Dr. Lalit Mohan Prasad,
Resident of Mohalla-Sheikhpura Bagicha, C/o Ramjaipal Singh Yadav near
I.G.I.M.S., P.S.-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna.
... ... Plaintiff-Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nikesh Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
11 06-01-2026 This Civil Revision application has been filed
under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBC
Act’) against the Judgment and decree dated 29.03.2023, decree
whereof sealed and signed on 13.04.2023, passed in Eviction
Suit no. 12 of 2012, passed by Sri Kumar Ritesh, Learned
Munsif-I, Patna Sadar, whereby and where under the learned
trial Court decreed the suit without cost directing the petitioner
to vacate the suit premises within 60 days from the date of
judgment, failing which the respondent will be at liberty to evict
the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises by the process of
the Court at the cost of the defendant-petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
2/24
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
respondents are the owner of the land of total area of 1947 sq.
ft., purchased out of their joint family fund. The land has been
registered through three separate registered sale deed nos. 8695,
8696 and 8697 respectively from Pramila Bala Sinha and others.
The suit premises is one of the portions of the said property.
After the purchase, the names of the purchasers were duly
mutated in the relevant municipal and revenue records, and
subsequently a commercial complex was constructed over the
said land in the name and style of “Sarswati Complex.”
4. Further, the case of the respondent is that on
22.05.2001, one of the co-purchasers, namely Abhishek Kumar
@ Abhishek Prasad, died intestate and unmarried, as a result of
which his undivided share measuring approximately 660 sq. ft.
devolved jointly upon the respondent and their mother, Smt.
Neelam Prasad, in accordance with law. The respondent, thus,
became a co-sharer and co-owner of the suit property along with
his mother. After attaining majority, and with the consent and
approval of his mother, the respondent instituted the present suit
for eviction in his capacity as a co-sharer landlord.
5. During the period when he was a minor, his
mother, on the request of the petitioner, agreed to induct him as
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
3/24
a tenant in respect of two commercial shops situated in the
Sarswati Complex, having a total area of about 218 sq. ft. (23′7″
× 9′3″). The petitioner is a monthly tenant in respect of the said
two shops on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400/- for one shop and Rs.
900/- for the other, aggregating to Rs. 2,300/- per month. The
tenancy was created on specific terms and conditions, inter alia,
that the monthly rent would be paid in advance within the first
week of each English calendar month, that the electricity
charges consumed in the suit premises would be borne and paid
by the petitioner, and that all other dues such as telephone bills,
service tax and any other applicable taxes would be the sole
responsibility of the petitioner.
6. It is further pleaded that it was an express
condition of the tenancy that if the petitioner defaulted in
payment of rent for two successive months, he would render
himself liable to be evicted from the suit premises through a
competent Court of law. It was also agreed that the petitioner
would not sublet the suit premises to any third party, would not
change the nature of his business without obtaining prior written
permission of the landlord, and would not make any alteration
or change in the shape, size or structure of the suit premises.
The respondent has further stated that he completed his Master
of Business Administration (MBA) course during the academic
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
4/24
session 2006–2008. However, owing to the fact that his mother
is a widow and requires his care and support, he has been
residing with her and has remained unemployed. In order to
earn his livelihood and to establish himself independently, the
respondent has decided to start his own business by opening a
showroom of a reputed company, for which the suit premises as
well as the portions under occupation of other tenants in the
complex are bona fide required.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the eviction suit as framed, is not maintainable either in law or
on facts and that it discloses no valid cause of action. According
to him, the facts relating to the accrual of cause of action, as
pleaded in the plaint, are false, incorrect and have been
deliberately concocted only for the purpose of instituting the
present suit. He further contended that the suit is barred by the
principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, and is also bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is the categorical case of
the petitioner that he had admittedly taken the suit premises on
rent from Smt. Neelam Prasad, the mother of the respondent,
and not from the respondent himself. On this ground alone, the
petitioner submits that the suit is not maintainable, as Smt.
Neelam Prasad, being the actual landlord and necessary party,
has not been impleaded in the suit.
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
5/24
7.i. He further submits that the plaint suffers
from material concealment of facts. The petitioner has denied
the respondent’s assertion that the tenancy was created with the
consent of the respondent and has alleged that such a story has
been falsely introduced to give color of legitimacy to the suit.
He further submits that the respondent has deliberately
concealed the full and correct description of the entire
construction of “Sarswati Complex.” It is specifically pleaded
that at the time of creation of tenancy, the respondent was
admittedly a minor and, therefore, there existed no relationship
of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the
petitioner.
7.ii. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
categorically denied the plea of bona fide personal necessity as
pleaded by the respondent and has contended that the same is
neither genuine nor sustainable in law. It has been urged that the
respondent’s assertion that he is required to reside at Patna for
the purpose of looking after his mother is factually incorrect,
inasmuch as the respondent’s mother is herself a well-placed,
self-sufficient lady serving as a Professor at Guru Gobind Singh
College. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserted that
the plea of personal necessity has been set up merely as a
pretext for eviction, as the respondent has been admittedly
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
6/24
gainfully employed since the year 2011 and has been working
with a water purifier company at Boring Road, thereby negating
any bona fide requirement to commence a business in the suit
premises.
7.iii. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
denied the allegation that any demand was made by the
respondent or his mother for vacating the suit premises and has
submitted that such assertions are wholly false, baseless and
fabricated. On the contrary, it has been specifically pleaded that
the respondent’s mother demanded an additional sum of Rs.
50,000/- by way of pagri and further sought enhancement of the
monthly rent to Rs. 8,000/-. Upon the petitioner expressing his
inability to accede to such illegal and unreasonable demands,
the respondent’s mother deliberately refused to accept the rent
tendered by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, the
petitioner has contended that he cannot be treated as a defaulter
in payment of rent and, consequently, is not liable to be evicted
from the suit premises.
7.iv. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the
petitioner has claimed that the eviction suit has been filed only
with an intention to harass and pressurize him, that it lacks bona
fide grounds, and that it is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
7/24
Court has erred in deciding Issue No. VII holding that the
petitioner is a defaulter having failed to pay rent from March
2012 because the suit was tried under special procedure for
passing a decree for eviction on the ground of personal necessity
and as such judgment / order under revision is fit to be set aside.
7.v. While deciding Issue Nos. VI, VII and VIII
the trial Court has passed the decree on consideration of the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff as the
defendant's defence having struck of for failing to the arrears of
rent as directed under Section 15 of the BBC Act, he was not
allowed to adduce evidence as a result of money order sent
against monthly rental which is part of the record could not be
marked as exhibits but the trial Court wrongly held that the
order was passed on consideration of evidence adduced by the
parties.
7.vi. The proviso to Section 11 (1) C reads as
under:
"provided that where the court thinks that
the reasonable requirement of the such
occupation may be only of the building and
allowing the tenant to continue and fix
proportionally fair rent for the portion in
occupation of the tenant, which portion
shall hence forth constitute the building
within the meaning of clause (6) of section
2 and the rent so fixed shall be deemed to
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
8/24
be the fair rent fixed under section 5".
7.vii. From the impugned order, it is evident that
the trial Court has not at all dealt with the requirement of the
above proviso and has held that since the landlord/plaintiff
requires the suit premises for personal use and occupation
reasonably and in good faith, hence the partial evidence would
not serve the purpose and requirement of the plaintiff” No
evidence was adduced about the dimension of the two rooms
which are subject matter of the suit.
7.viii. It is submitted that no evidence
whatsoever was adduced regarding the dimensions of the two
rooms which constitute the subject matter of the suit. The
Hon’ble Patna High Court has consistently held in several
decisions that it is a mandatory duty cast upon the Court, while
passing a decree of eviction on the ground of personal necessity,
to ascertain the dimensions of the suit premises and thereafter to
determine whether the requirement of the landlord can be
substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part of the
premises. Further, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment
rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bimal Kishore
Gupta v. Smt. Beena Devi & Ors., C.R. No. 2255 of 2000 and
Md. Jahangir v. Smt. Kirti Devi, Civil Revision No. 659 of
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
9/24
2001. Further, reliance is placed on the judgments reported in
2001 (2) PLJR 837; 2004 (4) PLJR 843 and 2002 (3) PLJR
656, wherein it has been categorically held that non-
consideration of the proviso to Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act
vitiates the decree of eviction.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits
that Smt. Neelam Prasad and her two sons, namely the
respondent and Abhishek Kumar @ Abhishek Prasad (since
deceased), purchased a joint family property measuring 1947 sq.
ft. on 16.10.1989 through three registered sale deeds bearing
Nos. 8697, 8696 and 8695 (Exhibits 2, 2/A and 2/B). After the
death of Abhishek Prasad on 22.05.2001 (Exhibit-3), his
undivided share devolved upon the respondent and his mother,
who have since been jointly enjoying right, title, interest and
possession over the property, paying rent as evidenced by
Exhibits 1, 1/A and 1/B, and having constructed “Sarswati
Complex” thereon. That after attaining majority, the respondent,
being a co-owner, instituted the eviction suit with the consent of
his mother on the sole ground of bona fide personal necessity.
8.i. He further submits that the petitioner is an
admitted tenant in respect of two commercial shops measuring
about 218 sq. ft. at a total monthly rent of Rs. 2,300/-. The
respondent, having completed his MBA (Marketing) in 2009
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
10/24
(Exhibit-4), remained unemployed and decided to start his own
business by opening a showroom, for which eviction of the
petitioner and other tenants is genuinely required. Repeated
requests to vacate the premises were refused, compelling the
filing of the suit. That the respondent has duly proved his title,
co-ownership and bona fide need through documentary
evidence and oral testimony of six witnesses, including himself
and his mother. The petitioner, in his written statement, has
admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, the quantum of
rent, and the purchase and construction of the Schedule-I
property.
8.ii. It is settled law that any one co-owner can
maintain an eviction suit with the consent of other co-sharers, as
held in 2004 (1) PLJR 462, Bhola Prasad Sah v. Ram Dhani
Prasad (para 9). He submits that the defence of the petitioner
was struck off under Section 15 (1) of the BBC Act, 1982, and
no cogent evidence was led by him. The petitioner has remained
in occupation without paying rent since 2012. He neither
pleaded nor proved that partial eviction would substantially
satisfy the respondent’s need. The onus to establish partial
eviction lies on the tenant, which the petitioner has failed to
discharge, as held in 2010 (3) PLJR 483, Chandradeep Kumar
v. Gatrumal Kanodia (para 25) and 2012 (3) PLJR 649,
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
11/24
Hanuman Prasad Gupta v. Shankar Chaudhary (paras 6–7).
8.iii. Further, partial eviction cannot be ordered
in absence of evidence, as laid down in 2014 (4) PLJR 476,
Hira Lal Das v. Loknath Newatia. In view of the aforesaid
facts, admissions, evidence and settled law, the respondent has
clearly established his bona fide personal necessity, and the
present Civil Revision deserves to be decided in favour of the
respondent.
9. After due consideration of the pleadings of the
parties, the issues framed for adjudication, and the oral as well
as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, and
upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial
Court, by judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in Eviction Suit
No. 12 of 2012, was pleased to allow the suit.
10. The Learned Trial Court in the judgment first
took up Issue No. V relating to the existence of the relationship
of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant
under the provisions of the BBC Act, 1982. Upon a detailed
consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned trial
Court in the judgment recorded that the defendant had, in
paragraphs 5, 12 and 13 of his written statement, clearly
admitted that he had taken the suit premises on rent on oral
agreement at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,300/-. The learned trial
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
12/24
Court in the judgment further relied upon the oral evidence of
PW-1, PW-6 and even the defence witnesses, DW-1 and DW-2,
who consistently admitted the tenancy and the agreed rate of
rent. On the basis of these admissions and corroborative
evidence, coupled with documentary exhibits including Exts. 1
to 1/B and Exts. 2 to 2/B, the learned trial Court in the judgment
held that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood
conclusively proved. It was further held that the defendant had
failed to pay rent since March 2012 and was, therefore, a
defaulter. Accordingly, Issue No. V was decided in favour of the
plaintiff.
11. While deciding Issue No. IV regarding non-
joinder of necessary parties, the learned trial Court in the
judgment held that although the plaintiff’s mother, Smt. Neelam
Prasad, was initially the landlady, the documentary and oral
evidence on record established the plaintiff’s ownership and
entitlement over the suit premises. Consequently, the suit was
held not to be bad for non-joinder of any necessary party, and
the issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the
learned trial Court in the judgment considered Issue Nos. VI and
VIII together, concerning partial eviction and the plaintiff’s
entitlement to a decree of eviction on the ground of personal
necessity. Upon appreciation of the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
13/24
5 and PW-6, as well as documentary evidence including Ext. 4,
the learned trial Court in the judgment recorded a finding that
the plaintiff had completed his MBA in 2009, remained
unemployed, and was required to stay at Patna to look after his
widowed mother. The learned trial Court in the judgment further
held that the plaintiff bona fide intended to open a showroom of
a reputed company and required not only the suit premises but
also additional space by eviction of other tenants. The learned
trial Court in the judgment rejected the plea of partial eviction,
holding that partial eviction would not satisfy the reasonable
requirement of the plaintiff.
12. Accordingly, the learned trial Court in the
judgment held that the plaintiff had established bona fide
personal necessity and was entitled to eviction of the defendant
from the suit premises. Finally, while deciding Issue Nos. I, II,
III and IX, the learned trial Court in the judgment held that the
suit was maintainable, that the plaintiff had a valid cause of
action, and that the suit was not barred by estoppel, waiver,
acquiescence or limitation. Consequently, all the issues were
decided in favour of the plaintiff.
13. By the impugned judgment and decree, the
learned trial Court in the judgment decreed the suit on contest
without cost and directed the defendant to vacate the suit
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
14/24
premises within 60 days from the date of judgment, failing
which the plaintiff was granted liberty to evict the defendant
through the process of the Court at the defendant’s cost.
14. Before adverting to the merits of the rival
submissions, it would be appropriate to notice the settled
principles of law governing eviction on the ground of bona fide
personal necessity and the scope of interference in revisional
jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court
have consistently held that once the landlord establishes a
genuine and reasonable requirement for his own use, the tenant
cannot dictate the manner in which the landlord should utilize
his property, nor can the Court substitute its own wisdom for
that of the landlord.
15. The decision of this Court in Bimal Kishore
Gupta v. Smt. Beena Devi & Ors., C.R. No. 2255 of 2000
(decided on 18.04.2001), supports the case of the
respondent/landlord wherein co-ordinate bench held that :
“Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1982-Section11(1)
(c), Proviso-Plaintiff (No. 2) being a joint
owner of the suit premises and having
interest in it, cannot be treated as a mere
Rent Collector and as such he can bring a
suit for eviction on the ground of personal
necessity-even if unprobated will did not
confer any right, title and inter-est to the
plaintiff (No. 1), the same will not be a
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
15/24
ground to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs
to seek eviction-however, duty is cast upon
the Court to consider the question of partial
eviction even if no such plea is taken by the
tenant-court is required to determine the
extent of the premises which is reasonably
required by the landlord-order of court
below directing eviction of petitioner-tenant
without consider-ing the question of partial
eviction is liable to be set aside matter
remitted back for fresh consideration.
(Paras 10, 12, to 14)”
“Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1982-Section 14(8)
r/w Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-though power u/s 14(8) is wider than
the power u/s 115, it cannot be equated with
the appellate power-High Court will inter-
fere with an order only when it is illegal or
perverse and to that extent reappraisal of
evidence is permissible however, High
Court cannot re-assess or re-evaluate the
evidence only on the ground that a different
view is feasible. (Para 11)”
16. Although Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the said case emphasized the duty of the trial Court to consider
the question of partial eviction even in the absence of a specific
plea by the tenant (paras 12–14), the eviction order therein was
set aside only on account of non-consideration of that aspect and
not for want of bona fide personal necessity. In the present case,
the learned trial Court in the judgment has expressly considered
and rejected the plea of partial eviction on the basis of evidence,
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
16/24
thereby curing the defect noticed in Bimal Kishore Gupta
(supra). The said judgment further delineates the limited scope
of revisional jurisdiction under Section 14(8) of the Act read
with Section 115 CPC, holding that interference is permissible
only where the order is illegal or perverse and not merely
because another view is possible (para 11). Thus, the ratio of
Bimal Kishore Gupta (supra) reinforces the respondent’s right
to seek eviction and supports non-interference with the well-
reasoned findings of the learned trial Court in the judgment.
17. The judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Md. Jahangir v. Smt. Kirti Devi, Civil Revision No.
659 of 2001, held that:
“Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)
Control Act, 1982-Section 14(8) r/w section
11-only because there is a plea from the
side of the tenant that an agreement of sale
was entered into between the landlord and
himself the same does not take away the
right of eviction on the ground as
contemplated u/s 11-by entering into an
agreement of purchase a per-son cannot
become owner apparent and till the sale
deed is executed in his favor does not
become ownership and as such the question
of merger of tenancy with the ownership
does not arise at all-a kirayanama (for ten
years) executed by the tenant or by the
landlord in favour of tenant can be
admissible only for col-lateral purposes (to
establish the relation-ship of landlord and
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
17/24
tenant on monthly rental)-other terms and
conditions are not implementable if such
kirayanama or lease is not a registered
deed-instantly, practically by legal
implication the relationship established
between the landlord and the purchaser-
landlord-lower court directed to frame an
issue on partial eviction. (Paras 4 to 6)”
“Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1982-Section 11(1)
(c)-partial eviction-only smallness of the
suit premises does not mean to give away
the adjudication regarding per-sonal
necessity-opportunity to tenant to adduce
evidence regarding partial eviction is
required to be given where the court below
has not arrived at on the issue of partial
eviction, the matter is required to be
remanded to the court below on this issue.
(Para 6)”
18. This Court further affirmed that once the
landlord establishes bona fide and reasonable personal
requirement, eviction is legally permissible, and ancillary pleas
raised by the tenant cannot defeat such statutory right. Although
in the said case the eviction decree was remitted only on the
limited issue of consideration of partial eviction, the findings of
the trial Court on maintainability of the suit, existence of
landlord–tenant relationship and bona fide personal necessity
were expressly upheld. The ratio of the said judgment, therefore,
reinforces the settled position that the landlord’s right to evict on
the ground of personal necessity remains intact, subject only to
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
18/24
consideration of partial eviction were warranted by evidence. In
the present case, since the learned trial Court in the judgment
has already considered and rejected the plea of partial eviction
on the basis of evidence on record, the principle laid down in
Md. Jahangir (supra) squarely supports the respondent–
landlord’s claim for eviction and non-interference with the
impugned decree.
19. The law relating to eviction on the ground of
bona fide personal necessity is no longer res integra. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, while interpreting the
scope of eviction on the ground of personal requirement, has
lucidly explained the approach which a Court is required to
adopt. In paragraph of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held as under:
“The crux of the ground envisaged in
clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that
the requirement of the landlord for
occupation of the tenanted premises must
be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that
he requires his building for his own
occupation the Rent Controller shall not
proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bonafide. When other
conditions of the clause are satisfied and
when the landlord shows a prima facie
case it is open to the Rent Controller to
draw a presumption that the requirement of
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
19/24
the landlord in bonafide. It is often said by
courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate
terms to the landlord as to how else he can
adjust himself without getting possession of
the tenanted premises. While deciding the
question of bonafide of the requirement of
the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make
an endeavor as to how else the landlord
could have adjusted himself.”
20. The principle laid down in Sarla Ahuja
(supra) further clarifies that once bona fide personal necessity is
established, the trial Court should not weigh the landlord’s
requirement against the convenience of the tenant, except to the
limited extent contemplated under the proviso relating to partial
eviction. In the present case, the learned trial Court in the
judgment has also examined the aspect of partial eviction and
has recorded a reasoned finding that partial eviction would not
satisfy the respondent’s requirement, particularly when the
respondent seeks a consolidated commercial space for
establishing a showroom. Thus, even the safeguard provided to
the tenant under the proviso stands duly considered and
answered.
21. In view of the authoritative pronouncement
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja (supra), and its
correct application by the learned trial Court in the judgment to
the facts of the present case, this Court finds no perversity,
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
20/24
arbitrariness or legal infirmity in the finding that the
respondent’s requirement is bona fide. The finding is based on
evidence, conforms to settled law, and does not warrant
interference in revisional jurisdiction.
22. Again, in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore
Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasised the concept of “reasonable requirement” and
observed that:
“In the present case, the requirement of
landlord of the suit premises for user as
office of his chartered accountant son is the
requirement of landlord ’for his own use’
within the meaning of Section 13(3)(a)(ii).”
23. In the present case, the learned trial Court in
the judgment has rightly accepted the respondent’s case that he
requires the suit premises for starting his own business after
completion of his MBA and for earning his livelihood. The
finding is not based on a mere assertion, but on a careful
appreciation of evidence showing that the respondent is
professionally qualified, has remained unemployed, and intends
to utilize the suit premises for establishing an independent
source of income. Such a requirement squarely falls within the
concept of bona fide personal necessity as recognized by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, which includes the need of a landlord
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
21/24
to settle himself in life and earn his livelihood through self-
employment. Viewed in this light, the respondent’s case fully
satisfies the test laid down by the Apex Court that the landlord’s
requirement must be genuine, honest and conceived in good
faith. The learned trial Court in the judgment has therefore
committed no error in holding that the respondent’s need for the
suit premises is bona fide and warrants eviction of the tenant in
accordance with law.
24. The law on eviction on the ground of bona
fide personal necessity stands authoritatively settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem
Machinery & Co., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 679 wherein
categorically held that “the landlord is the best judge of his
requirement for residential or business purposes and enjoys
complete freedom in deciding how and where he intends to
carry on his business” (para 10). It was further clarified that
“the mere existence or ownership of other properties does not
defeat the landlord’s claim of bonafide necessity unless it is
specifically proved that such alternative premises are vacant
and suitable for the proposed purpose” (para 12). This Court
also emphasized that the question of bona fide requirement is
essentially a question of fact to be determined on appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence, and once such finding is
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
22/24
recorded by the trial Court, it does not give rise to any
substantial question of law warranting interference (para 9):
“The only question to be decided in the suit was whether the
plaintiff-landlord wanted the suit premises for bona fide
requirement… it has to be decided on appreciation of
evidence.”
25. Importantly, the Supreme Court disapproved
re-appreciation of evidence merely because another view is
possible and held that interference with concurrent findings of
fact is impermissible unless the findings are perverse or illegal
(para 16):
“The High Court in the second appeal
erred in law by setting aside concurrent
findings of fact of the courts below by re-
appreciating the entire evidence on
record.”
26. Applying these settled principles to the facts
of the present case, this Court finds that the learned trial Court
in the judgment has, upon a proper appreciation of evidence,
rightly recorded a categorical finding of bona fide personal
necessity in favour of the respondent–landlord. The petitioner–
tenant has failed to establish the availability of any suitable
alternative accommodation or to dislodge the said finding.
Consequently, no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
23/24
found in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference in
revisional jurisdiction.
27. The Hon’ble Patna High Court has also
consistently taken the view that once bona fide personal
necessity is established, eviction must follow unless the tenant
discharges the burden of proving partial eviction. In Bhola
Prasad Sah v. Ram Dhani Prasad, 2004 (1) PLJR 462, this
Court held in paragraph 9:
“In case of joint family property, any one of
the co-sharers can maintain an eviction suit
against the tenant and the tenant cannot
resist eviction on the ground that other co-
sharers have not joined, particularly when
consent is established.”
28. This judgment directly answers the
petitioner’s objection regarding non-joinder of Smt. Neelam
Prasad as a plaintiff/opposite party and fully supports the
maintainability of the suit. In view of the facts and
circumstances discussed herein-above, the pleadings of the
parties, the evidence on record, and the settled principles of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and decree dated
29.03.2023, passed by the learned Munsif-I, Patna Sadar, in
Eviction Suit No. 12 of 2012, warranting interference in
Patna High Court C.R. No.83 of 2023(11) dt.06-01-2026
24/24
exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 14(8) of the
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
29. Accordingly, the Civil Revision No. 83 of
2023 is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 29.03.2023,
sealed and signed on 13.04.2023, passed by the learned trial
Court in the judgment, are hereby affirmed.
30. The petitioner/tenant is directed to vacate and
hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to
the respondent–landlord within a period of 60 (sixty) days from
today, failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to execute
the decree and recover possession of the suit premises through
the process of the Court at the risk and cost of the petitioner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U
Checking your session…