Patna High Court

Mohammad HesamuddinversusMohammad Nasir

Decided: 19 March 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: KHATIM REZA

Holding

The plaintiff is the lawful owner and landlord of the suit premises, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The original plaintiff, Mohammad Sakir, filed an eviction suit against the defendant alleging default in rent and personal necessity for the ancestral house. The plaintiff’s heirs substituted after his death and proved ownership through tax receipts and municipal records, establishing a landlord‑tenant relationship. The defendant contested ownership, claiming the house belonged to Bibi Rashida Khatoon via an oral gift and that he was a prospective purchaser under a Mahadnama, but failed to produce documentary evidence. Both the Trial Court and the 2nd District Judge upheld the plaintiff’s title, ordered eviction, mesne profits and damages, and dismissed the defendant’s title appeal. On second appeal, the Patna High Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings, noting no substantial question of law and dismissing the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC.

Issues considered

The plaintiff’s right to file an eviction suit as the lawful landlord
Whether the defendant, as a tenant, can later challenge the landlord’s title
The entitlement of the plaintiff to mesne profits and damages for rent arrears
The effect of the alleged oral hibba (gift) to Bibi Rashida Khatoon on ownership
Whether any substantial question of law warrants interference with the lower courts’ findings

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Subjects

eviction
landlord‑tenant relationship
rent arrears
personal necessity
title dispute
specific performance
mesne profits
Civil Procedure

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.484 of 2025
======================================================
Mohammad Hesamuddin Son of Late Sadrul Hasan, resident of Mohalla-
Khetari in front of Ram Chandra Sonar, P.S. Ara Town, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Mohammad Nasir Son of Late Mohammad Sakir, Resident of Mohalla-
Khetari Old Ward No. 22 New Ward No. 20, P.S. - Ara Town, District-
Bhojpur.
2. Heena Ajmari, D/o - Late Mohammad Sakir, Resident of Mohalla- Khetari
Old Ward No. 22 New Ward No. 20, P.S. - Ara Town, District- Bhojpur.
3. Noor Saba, D/o - Late Mohammad Sakir, Resident of Mohalla- Khetari Old
Ward No. 22 New Ward No. 20, P.S. - Ara Town, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Syed Firoz Raza, Senior Advocate
Mr.Hasnain Haider, Advocate
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER

5 19-03-2026 Heard Mr. Syed Firoz Raza, learned senior counsel

assisted by Mr. Hasnain Haider, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant.

2. The present Second Appeal has been preferred

against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 17.10.2025

passed by the learned 2nd District Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, in

Title Appeal No. 52 of 2019, whereby the judgment and decree

dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Execution Munsif, Ara,

in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 2004 has been upheld.

3. The original plaintiff, Mohammad Sakir, filed the
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
2/11

aforesaid Eviction Suit for eviction of the defendant on the

grounds of personal necessity and default in payment of rent as

also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages at the rate of

Rs. 500/- per month with effect from October, 2004. During the

pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and his heirs and

legal representatives were substituted in his place. It has further

been pleaded that the house, in-question, is the ancestral

property of the original plaintiff and the names of the original

plaintiff Mohammad Sakir and his brother Mohammad Sabir are

recorded as the owners of the said house. Exts. 1, 1/a, 1/b and

1/c are the original tax receipts issued in the names of

Mohammad Sakir and Mohammad Sabir. The further case of the

plaintiff is that the defendant is a resident of a different district

and was previously a tenant of other persons. In the year 1994,

the defendant was inducted as a tenant in respect of the

Schedule-I property on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- payable on

month-to-month basis and he had to also maintain the house, in

question. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per

month in July, 1997, which the defendant paid regularly. It has

further been pleaded that there was a municipal water tap

outside the house from which the defendant used to obtain

water. Thereafter, the defendant requested for installation of a
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
3/11

hand pump within the tenanted premises stating that the

expenses incurred would be adjusted towards rent. The plaintiff

asserted that the original plaintiff was a retired person and did

not have sufficient funds for installation of the pump and,

therefore, requested the defendant to vacate the premises.

Subsequently, a panchayati was convened at the instance of the

defendant in the presence of local persons including Abu Nasar

and Athar Karim wherein, it was agreed that the plaintiff would

install the hand pump, repair the ceiling from where seepage

was taking place, provide a shed, and complete the construction

of a toilet. In lieu thereof, the defendant agreed to pay rent at the

rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from June, 2000. The

parties acted accordingly and the defendant paid rent at the said

rate from 2000 to 2003. Thereafter, the defendant by raising

disputes and adopting delaying tactics, stopped paying rent and

became a defaulter. The plaintiff also asserted personal necessity

for the house making it necessary to have the defendant vacate

the premises. On several occasions the original plaintiff

demanded payment of rent and lastly, on 20.09.2004, demanded

arrears of rent for the period from February, 2003 to August,

2004, i.e., 19 months, along with damages at the rate of Rs.

500/- per month. As the defendant failed to pay the dues, the
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
4/11

original plaintiff filed the present Eviction Suit.

4. On summons, the defendant appeared and filed his

written statement. Apart from ornamental objections, the

defendant pleaded that the plaintiff has no right to file the

Eviction Suit and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant

between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant further

pleaded that the premises belong to Bibi Rashida Khatoon,

which was orally gifted to her by her father, namely,

Mohammad Amir. Later on, in the year 1998, when Bibi

Rashida Khatoon was going to Jamshedpur to her in-laws’

place, she expressed her desire to sell the same for Rs. 60,000/-.

The defendant, at that time, was not having so much money and

therefore paid Rs. 5,000/- on 13.02.1998 and thereafter a Sada

Mahadnama (agreement to sale) was executed by Bibi Rashida

Khatoon and her husband signed the document as a witness.

Further case of the defendant is that on several occasion the

defendant tried to pay the remaining amount to Bibi Rashida

Khatoon but, she denied. Thereafter, the defendant sent a

notice to Bibi Rashida Khatoon and when Bibi Rashida

Khatoon did not respond to the notice, he was constrained to file

Title Suit No. 135 of 1999 for Specific Performance of Contract

which is pending for deposition before the learned Sub Judge-
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
5/11

5. The defendant further pleaded that Bibi Rashida

Khatoon under the influence of the original plaintiff did not

execute the sale deed. He denied the assertion that he has been

residing in the suit premises as a tenant since 1985. It was also

contended that he never paid rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per

month nor was the same ever enhanced to Rs. 200/- or Rs. 500/-

per month, as claimed. The defendant’s further case is that the

house in- question, stands over Khata No. 1053 and there is no

house of plaintiff near the house in-question. On such grounds,

it is asserted that the original plaintiff has no legal right to file

the present suit.

6. The learned Trial Court, after considering the

pleadings, the evidence adduced by the parties, and the

materials on record, has held that the plaintiff has clearly proved

the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the issue

relating to arrears of rent and has established his case. On the

other hand, the defendant has failed to prove that he is the tenant

of Bibi Rashida Khatoon. In paragraph no. 10 of the written

statement, the defendant has admitted that he used to reside in

the disputed house, in- question, as a tenant of Rashida

Khatoon but, failed to prove that Bibi Rashida Khatoon had
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
6/11

acquired the disputed land through an oral Hibba (gift) from his

father. There was no cogent material before the learned Trial

Court to establish that the said property belonged to Bibi

Rashida Khatoon. On the contrary, in the Municipal Tax

receipts, the Tax Collection Book of Nagar Parishad, Ara, and

the Municipal Survey Khatiyan, the names of the original

plaintiff Mohammad Sakir and his brother Mohammad Shabir

are recorded as the owners of the disputed house to substantiate

the case of the original plaintiff. The claim of the defendant is

that he is living in the disputed house on the basis of a

‘Mahadnama’ dated 13.02.1998 in respect of which Title Suit

No. 135 of 1999 is sub judice. The defendant, Md. Hesamuddin

(plaintiff in Title Suit No. 135 of 1999) in his cross-examination

in paragraph no. 13, has categorically stated that Eviction Suit

No. 15 of 2004 is presently being tried before the learned

Execution Munsif. It has also come on record that the defendant

was living in the said house as a tenant till the year 1998 and

was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Thus, the

relationship of landlord and tenant between the original plaintiff

and the defendant stands clearly established. The learned Trial

Court further held that the defendant had not paid any rent and

had, thus, become a defaulter. It was also held that the plaintiff
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
7/11

required the suit premises for his personal necessity. The Court

further observed that the plaintiff, through his oral as well as

documentary evidence, had tried to establish his ownership and

possession over the disputed property and was, therefore,

entitled to damages and mesne profits. On the other hand, the

defendant failed to establish that he was a tenant of Bibi

Rashida Khatoon or that his possession was by virtue of the

‘Mahadnama’ (an unregistered agreement to sell). Accordingly,

the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

29.03.2019 passed in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 2004 by the

learned Execution Munsif, the defendant-appellant preferred

Title Appeal No. 52 of 2019 and after hearing the parties and

considering the materials on record, the learned 2nd District

Judge, Ara, affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court

and dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated

17.10.2025, which is under challenge in the present Second

Appeal.

8. From the materials available on record, it appears

that the learned Appellate Court, being the final court of facts,

after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence

adduced, arrived at a clear finding that the house in-question,
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
8/11

belongs to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the suit premises. It

was further observed that Ext. 4 reveals that Bibi Rashida

Khatoon denied the execution of the ‘Mahadnama’ and further

stated that the defendant was a tenant of Mohammad Sakir, the

original plaintiff. The Appellate Court further observed that

Exts. 5 and 6 reveal that the defendant himself admitted that the

disputed house is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and he

was residing therein as a tenant. The learned Appellate Court

has also taken into consideration that the defendant, both in his

written statement as well as in his evidence, admitted that the

suit property originally belonged to the father of the original

plaintiff. He further admitted that the oral hibba was not made

in his presence and that he had no personal knowledge thereof.

The Court also observed that the defendant failed to produce

any documentary evidence to establish that the disputed house

belonged to Bibi Rashida Khatoon. On the contrary, the

witnesses of the plaintiff supported his case, particularly with

regard to non-payment of rent by the defendant. The Appellate

Court further observed that although the defendant denied that

he was a tenant of the plaintiff as also denied payment of rent,

his own statement in the written statement and evidence clearly

show that the landlord-tenant relationship existed between the
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
9/11

parties. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned Appellate

Court upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and

dismissed the Title Appeal preferred by the defendant–appellant.

9. Both the Courts below having gone through the

facts and circumstances of the case have concurrently held that

the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. This Court places

reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of M.M. Quasim vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors.,

reported in AIR 1981 SC 1113, in which it has been held that

the person in whose favour the subject property was

registered/allotted would be deemed to be the landlord for the

purpose of conducting eviction proceeding.

10. The defendant claims to have agreed to purchase

the suit premises on the basis of an agreement to sell dated

13.02.1998. Pursuant to the said claim, he filed Title Suit No.

135 of 1999 for specific performance of contract. In the said

suit, during his cross-examination in paragraph 13, the

defendant, who is the plaintiff therein categorically stated that

Eviction Suit No. 15 of 2004 was pending before the learned

Execution Munsif and admitted that he had been residing in the

suit premises as a tenant till the year 1998, and prior thereto, had

been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. It is,
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
10/11

therefore, evident from the record that the defendant

acknowledged his tenancy prior to 1998 and asserted the status

of a proposed purchaser only after the execution of the

‘Mahadnama’ dated 13.02.1998. The aforesaid Title Suit No.

135 of 1999 is still pending for adjudication. Notwithstanding

the same, the defendant has challenged the ownership of the

plaintiff over the suit premises. Reliance is placed on the

judgment in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited Vs. Mohammad Amber Yunus and Anr. reported in

1997 (1) PLJR 230, wherein this Court has held that “Once a

person is inducted as tenant by a person claiming himself to be

the landlord the tenant cannot be permitted in law to challenge

the title later on.”

11. The defendant has himself admitted that prior to

1998 he was a tenant in respect of the suit premises at a monthly

rent of Rs. 100/-. He has further asserted that on 13.02.1998 the

premises in-question, became the subject matter of an

agreement for sale executed by Bibi Rashida Khatoon.

However, the said Bibi Rashida Khatoon has categorically

denied the execution of any such agreement for sale

(Mahadanama) and has, on the contrary, stated that the

defendant was a tenant of Mohammad Sakir. It is also an
Patna High Court SA No.484 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
11/11

admitted position that the defendant has not paid any rent to the

plaintiff. The original plaintiff, in the plaint, has specifically

pleaded regarding default of payment of rent and payment of

arrears of rent.

12. Having regard to the discussion made

here-in-above as well as the facts and circumstances of the case,

I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the

learned Courts below. There is no question of law inasmuch as

no substantial question of law is involved in this case.

13. Thus, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed at

the stage of hearing ‘under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC’.

14. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall

stand disposed of.

(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…