Patna High Court

Fajal Mahamood @ PappuversusMd. Firoj

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: KHATIM REZA

Holding

The plaintiff proved the landlord‑tenant relationship and the tenant's default, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The plaintiff, Md. Firoz, filed an eviction suit against the defendant, Fajal Mahamood (Pappu), claiming landlord‑tenant relationship and default in rent under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The trial court found the plaintiff proved ownership of the premises, the tenancy agreement, and the defendant's failure to pay rent, and decreed eviction. The defendant appealed on the ground that he rented from a third party, Sayeeda Bano, and denied the plaintiff's title, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decree. On second appeal, the High Court observed that the defendant produced no evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s case, that a tenant cannot challenge the landlord’s title in an eviction suit, and that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC.

Issues considered

Whether the plaintiff established a landlord‑tenant relationship and right to evict under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
Whether the tenant can contest the landlord's title in an eviction proceeding.
Whether default in payment of rent justifies eviction.
Whether the appeal raises any substantial question of law warranting reversal.

Legislation cited

Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLI Rule 11

Subjects

eviction
landlord-tenant
default in rent
title dispute
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act
second appeal
Civil Procedure

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.382 of 2024
======================================================
Fajal Mahamood @ Pappu (Male) aged about 45 years, son of Late
Mohamood Alam, resident of Village-Sakri Darbar Tola, P.O.-Sakari, Police
Station-Sakari, District Madhubani.

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Md. Firoj, son of Ajijur Rahman, resident of Village-Balant, Police Station-
Sakri, District Madhubani.
2. Md. Anwar Khan, S/o Md. Salimuddin, R/o Village-Chanda Tola, P.S. &
P.O.- Sakri, Madhubani
3. Md. Abbas, S/o Md. Suleman, R/o Village- Bauli Tola, Sakri, P.S. & P.O.-
Sakri, Anchal-Pandaul, Madhubani

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arshad Alam, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER

9 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 31.07.2024 passed by the learned

District Judge, Madhubani, in Eviction Appeal No. 03 of 2023

whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2023 passed by

the Munsif-1, Madhubani, in Eviction Suit No.04 of 2018 was

affirmed.

3. The defendant is the appellant and respondent no. 1

is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2018

against the defendant Fazal Mahmood @ Md. Pappu, son of
Patna High Court SA No.382 of 2024(9) dt.08-01-2026
2/9

Late Mahmood Alam for eviction on the ground of personal

necessity and default in payment of rent.

4. The said suit was decreed by the learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Madhubani vide judgment and decree

dated 24.01.2023 against which the defendant/appellant filed

Title Appeal No. 03 of 2023, which was dismissed by the

learned District Judge, Madhubani by its judgment and decree

dated 31.07.2024, which is under challenge in the instant

Second Appeal.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that Azizur Rehman had

four sons Md. Kais, Md. Owais, Md. Firoz and Md. Shahnawaz.

The plaintiff and his brothers have joint business and earning

from that joint business. They had purchased through sale deed

on 11.06.2009 an area 12.5 dhurs in the name of Shahnawaz and

Md. Owais from Azimuddin Hussain @ Cheeku Babu and

further through sale deed dated 18.06.2009 they had purchased

12.5 dhurs land in the name of Md. Kais and Md. Firoz

(plaintiff) from Azimuddin Hussain @ Cheeku Babu after

paying consideration amount to him with respect to the land

appertaining Khata No. 15 (old), 988 (new), Plot No. 1142 (old),

2348 (new) admeasuring area 12 and ½ dhurs land each. All the

four brothers including the plaintiff sons of Azizur Rehman
Patna High Court SA No.382 of 2024(9) dt.08-01-2026
3/9

came in joint possession over the said land and constructed

house thereon. It is further pleaded that the defendant/appellant

Md. Pappu was in need of a room for business purpose, as such,

he approached the plaintiff and his brother Shahnawaz to let out

a room as detailed in Schedule-II of the plaint to him on

monthly rent and the same was given to him on monthly rent of

Rs. 2700/- and it was agreed that at the end of the month, the

tenant will pay rent of the suit premises to Md. Firoz (plaintiff).

It was also agreed that after expiry of the tenancy agreement, the

defendant himself will vacate the suit premises and handover

the tenanted premises to the landlord. The tenant deposited Rs.

20,000/- as security money with the landlord of the premises so

that no damage is caused to the house in any manner. If the

tenant will vacate the premises, in that circumstance, the

landlord of the house will return Rs. 20,000/- to the tenant. A

tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was

prepared and executed on 12.02.2011 and the plaintiff permitted

the defendant to live in the suit premises on the condition that

when the plaintiff will have necessity of the said premises for

his personal purpose, the tenant will have to vacate the same.

The tenancy began from 11.01.2012. It is further pleaded that

plaintiff’s brother Md. Kais has two sons, namely, Md. Hamid
Patna High Court SA No.382 of 2024(9) dt.08-01-2026
4/9

and Md. Khalid and Md. Owais has three sons, namely, Md.

Rashid, Md. Sajid and Md. Ashique, who were unemployed and

required the suit premises for their business which could not be

fulfilled without vacating the premises. The plaintiff and his

brothers have joint state of affairs in mess and business and the

sons of brothers of the plaintiff were unemployed. So, the

plaintiff told the defendant to vacate the premises on which the

defendant stopped paying the rent of the tenanted premises to

the plaintiff since June, 2018. When the defendant resisted to

vacate the premises, then the plaintiff sent an Advocate notice to

the defendant on 18.06.2018 through his Lawyer but the

defendant did not give any reply due to which the plaintiff felt

necessity for filing the eviction suit against the defendant. Since

the partial vacation of the premises could not meet the

requirement of the plaintiff so, the plaintiff filed eviction suit for

vacating the entire tenanted premises.

6. The defendant appeared and filed his written

statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. The

defendant vehemently submitted that he took the premises from

one Sayeeda Bano, who is the owner of the said premises and

has been running shop named as M/s Bihar Electronic and

Electric and paying its rent to Sayeeda Bano.
Patna High Court SA No.382 of 2024(9) dt.08-01-2026
5/9

7. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Trial Court

framed issues and after considering the pleadings, materials on

record and the evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit

and clearly held that witnesses adduced on behalf of the plaintiff

have supported the case of the plaintiff and he is the landlord of

the premises which was let out to the defendant, inasmuch as,

the plaintiff has also proved that he along with his three brothers

had purchased the land and Sayeeda Bano, PW-4, herself has

also denied about her ownership of the disputed land, rather, she

has accepted that the disputed land was purchased by the

plaintiff. The plaintiff has adduced oral as well as documentary

evidence during the trial but neither any oral evidence or

documentary was adduced and produced on behalf of defendant

nor he advanced his argument during the hearing except filing

the written statement. The defendants have not produced any

documentary or oral evidence in support of their contentions,

simply denying the title and stating that the sale deeds are

forged one and will not itself establish their stand. On the other

hand, the plaintiff has examined as many as 10 witnesses

including the other tenants. The plaintiff has also examined PW-

4 Sayeeda Bano, who is alleged to be the real owner as claimed

by the defendant. The plaintiff has also filed sale deeds dated
Patna High Court SA No.382 of 2024(9) dt.08-01-2026
6/9

11.06.2009 and 18.06.2009 as well as revenue receipts. The

plaintiff has made out a case seeking relief made in the plaint

and once the plaintiff discharges such burden by placing

sufficient evidence, which remains un-rebutted by non-

production of witnesses or supporting documents, the benefit

shall go to the plaintiff. The rent agreements have also been

marked as Exhibit Nos. 3, 3A and 3B. The amount of rent of the

premises is mentioned in the agreement. In such situation, it is

established that there was agreement between the parties. The

learned Trial Court further held that the suit premises is

admeasuring 15x8 feet and the plaintiff has bonafide necessity

of the suit premises. After considering the materials on record

and evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the suit was decreed.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and

decree, the defendant/appellant filed Title Appeal No. 03 of

2023 stating therein that he had taken the suit premises on rent

from Sayeeda Bano and denied the title of the plaintiff. The

learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the

appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial

Court. The learned First Appellate Court held that there is

admission on part of the appellant that they had taken the suit

premises on rent from Sayeeda Bano while Sayeeda Bano, who
Patna High Court SA No.382 of 2024(9) dt.08-01-2026
7/9

was examined as PW-4, has confirmed the fact that she has no

title to the disputed property. She also asserts that Md. Firoz

(plaintiff) is the owner of the property. Simply denying the title

doesn’t held that the person, who has filed the eviction suit, is

not owner of the property. Once the person, who is said to be

owner of the property by the defendant, comes to the witness

box and states that there is no truth to such assertion, the very

foundation of the defendants case is shattered. All the witnesses,

who have been examined, categorically stated that the disputed

premises is the joint property of four brothers and market built

thereon is surrounded by rented premises given to various

persons. PW-2, who is one of the business man of the market,

states that Md. Firoz is one of the owner of the property. PW-3,

who is one of the tenant, also accepts the ownership of the

plaintiff.

9. The learned Appellate Court after considering the

facts and circumstances as well as materials available on record,

dismissed the appeal on the basis of observation made above.

10. Having considered the submissions made on

behalf of the appellant and after perusal of materials on record

including the judgment of the learned courts below, it appears

that the learned court of appeal below, which is the final court of
Patna High Court SA No.382 of 2024(9) dt.08-01-2026
8/9

facts, after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence

adduced by them came to a clear finding that the plaintiff has

proved his case and the defendants have neither adduced any

evidence nor filed any documents in support of his pleadings

during the trial. The defendants except filing the written

statement have not produced either any documentary or oral

evidence in support of their contentions, simply denying the title

of the plaintiff and stating that the sale deeds are forged will not

by itself establish their stand. The defendants have sought to

raise objection with regard to genuineness of the sale deed

executed in favour of the plaintiff. The tenant cannot be

permitted to challenge the validity of the sale deeds in eviction

suit filed under Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)

Control Act, 1982. The defendant/tenant pleaded in his written

statement that he was inducted as tenant by one Sayeeda Bano

and was paying rent to her. However, the said Sayeeda Bano,

who was examined as PW-4, has stated in her evidence that she

has no title to the disputed property and she also stated that Md.

Firoz is the owner of the property. There is no case of the

defendant that he ever paid the rent to the plaintiff. It is a clear

case of default. The agreement between the parties with regard

to tenancy has been proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, there is
Patna High Court SA No.382 of 2024(9) dt.08-01-2026
9/9

relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the

defendant defaulted in paying the rent.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, as discussed above, it is quite apparent that the

judgments and decree of the courts below are covered by

finding of facts and no question of law much less substantial

question of law arises for consideration in the instant Second

Appeal.

12. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at

the stage of admission under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C.

13. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall

stand disposed of.

(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…