Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar vs Kuldeep Gupta @ Vishal Gupta on 11 March, 2026
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.9 of 2024
======================================================
Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Gulab Chand Prasad, resident of Manoj Kumar, S/o.
Late Gulab Chand Prasad, resident of J. Alankar Jewellers, Mauna Chowk,
P.O. and P.S. Chhapra Town, Chhapra, District Saran, Pincode- 841301,
Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Kuldeep Gupta @ Vishal Gupta, son of Suresh Prasad, resident of Mohalla
Mauna Phatak, P.O. and P.S. Chhapra Town, District Saran, Bihar.
2. Naveet Gupta, son of Suresh Prasad, resident of Mohalla Mauna Phatak,
P.O. and P.S. Chhapra Town, District Saran, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Dhananjaya Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abhishek, Advocate
Mrs. Sripriya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 11-03-2026
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek, learned counsel for the opposite
parties.
2. 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 01.12.2023 passed by learned Sub
Judge-II, Saran at Chapra, in Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2012 by
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
2/17
which the suit was decreed upon finding that relationship of
landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant exists and
that the plaintiffs have been able to prove the ground of personal
necessity as pleaded.
3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the
defendant-petitioner who was a tenant in the disputed premises
having a small area of 1 dhur 12 dhurkis with a dimension of 9 ft 6
inch in width and 11 ft 6 inches in depth (in length) having a total
area of 109.25 Sq. ft. at a rental of Rs. 800/- per month. The
original owner was in dire need of money and as such, he sold the
suit property to the plaintiffs through registered sale deed dated
17.10.2011
within the knowledge of defendant and the defendant-
petitioner promised to vacate the shop immediately, however, he
paid rent to the plaintiffs for the month of October and November,
2011. Thereafter, he failed to pay the rent and claimed the property
on the basis of forged Mahadanama (Agreement to sell) for which
Title Suit No. 51 of 2012 was filed by the defendant-petitioner for
Specific Performance of Contract with false and fabricated
averments. The plaintiffs-opposite parties have purchased the
shop, in question, for personal necessity as their father was in need
of the money for starting business of jewellery and as such
plaintiffs filed the suit only on the ground of personal necessity.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
3/17
4. On summon, the defendant appeared and filed his
written statement. Apart from ornamental objection, the defendant
denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiffs and defendant. It is further pleaded that the father of the
petitioner namely, Gulabchand Prasad was inducted as tenant in
the disputed property on rent by its owner namely, Md. Salauddin
in the year 1972 and he opened a shop in it. It is further contended
that Md. Salauddin was in urgent need of money and he
approached the defendant-petitioner for selling the disputed
property to the petitioner and as the petitioner was in need of suit
property, hence, he agreed to purchase the same from Md.
Salauddin for the consideration amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The
defendant-petitioner had made the payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- out
of the agreed consideration amount on 01.09.2011 to Md.
Salauddin and the rest amount i.e. a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was
promised to be paid within one month for which Md. Salauddin
agreed and executed Ekrarnama dated 01.09.2011 in presence of
the witnesses and handed over the original documents to the
petitioner. It was also agreed that after receiving the rest Rs.
75,000/- Md. Salauddin will execute the sale deed of the disputed
property in favour of defendant-petitioner failing which the
petitioner will have the right to deposit Rs. 75,000/- in Court and
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
4/17
get the sale deed executed in favour of defendant-petitioner
through the process of Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached
Md. Salauddin to tender the rest amount i.e. Rs. 75,000/- several
times but Md. Salauddin avoided to accept it on one pretext or the
other. Subsequently, the petitioner heard rumour that Md.
Salauddin had executed the sale deed in respect of the suit
property in favour of plaintiffs-opposite parties despite subsistence
of Agreement to Sell dated 01.09.2011. After obtaining certified
copy of the sale deed dated 17.10.2011, the defendant-petitioner
filed Title Suit No. 51 of 2012 for Specific Performance of
Contract in the court of 1st Sub Judge, Saran at Chapra along with
relief for setting aside sale deed dated 17.10.2011. The plaintiffs
appeared and filed their written statement on 10.04.2012. Soon
thereafter, the plaintiffs-opposite parties filed Eviction Suit No. 11
of 2012 before the Court of 1st Munsif at Chapra (Saran) against
the defendant-petitioner as a counter blast to the earlier instituted
Title Suit No. 51 of 2012. The defendant further pleaded that
father of the defendant was inducted as a tenant of Syed Md.
Sharfuddin (father of Md. Salauddin) at the monthly rental of Rs.
30/- in the year 1972. After the death of father of the defendant in
the year 2009, the defendant continued as a tenant and rent was
paid from 2009 to 2012 at the rate of Rs. 330/- per month, total
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
5/17
amounting to Rs. 15,840/- was deposited in the account of Md.
Salauddin on 27.10.2011. The plaintiffs wrongly stated that the
rent was Rs. 880/- per month. It is further contended that rent was
only due with regard to month of January, 2013 at the rate of Rs.
330/- of the owner of the premises namely, Md. Salauddin. The
personal necessity of plaintiffs is denied and the defendants further
denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiffs and defendant. Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief
against the defendant.
5. The plaintiffs in support of their claim on the basis of
issues framed by the trial court adduced altogether six witnesses
and got exhibited four documents.
6. On the other hand, the defendant-petitioner examined
five witnesses but did not file any documentary evidence during
trial.
7. The learned trial court after considering the materials
brought on record and upon hearing the parties decreed the suit
and ordered the defendant to vacate the premises within 30 days
and give the possession of the same to the plaintiffs failing which
the defendant will be evicted from the suit premises through the
process of court. Learned trial court has held that the plaintiffs are
purchasers from the original owner namely, Md. Salauddin on
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
6/17
17.10.2011 through registered sale deed (Ext. 2). After purchase of
the said premises, the name of the plaintiffs were recorded and
holding tax were being paid by the plaintiffs (Ext. A & A/1). Both
the plaintiffs have license for doing business of gold and silver and
the suit premises is suitable for the jewellery business. Both the
plaintiffs are sitting idle.
8. On the other hand, the defendant though filed his
written statement but did not produce himself in dock for
examination. After considering the oral and documentary
evidences, it has been held that the plaintiffs purchased the suit
premises from Md. Salauddin, who was the previous landlord of
the defendant. Hence, the relationship of landlord and tenant has
been proved by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have successfully
proved their case. The plaintiffs have also proved their case on the
point of bonafide requirement/necessity. The learned trial court
held that the plaintiffs have bonafide personal requirement of the
suit premises and the plaintiffs are entitled to get the defendant
evicted from the suit premises.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated
01.12.2023 passed by the learned Sub Judge-II, Saran at Chapra in
Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2012, the defendant has assailed the
judgment and decree in the present Civil Revision application.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
7/17
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
trial court has not properly considered the evidence of the parties
and therefore, the findings are vitiated. It is further submitted that
the learned trial court failed to consider that the original owner
namely, Md. Salauddin executed a Ekrarnama with regard to the
suit premises on 01.09.2011 after receiving the advance money of
Rs. 3,50,000/- and remaining Rs. 75,000/- was to be paid within
one month for which Md. Salauddin agreed and executed
Ekrarnama dated 01.09.2011 in presence of the witnesses. The
plaintiffs purchased the land from original owner, Md. Salauddin
despite having full knowledge about the Agreement to Sell dated
01.09.2011. After obtaining certified copy of sale deed dated
17.10.2011 executed by Md. Salauddin in favour of plaintiffs, the
petitioner filed Title Suit No. 51 of 2012 seeking a decree for
Specific Performance of Contract and also for setting aside the sale
deed dated 17.10.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
tenant of original land owner, who executed Agreement to Sell
with regard to the suit property on 01.09.2011. The relationship of
landlord and tenant has come to an end with execution of said
Agreement to Sell. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that once there is an Agreement to Sell between the
landlord and tenant, the old relationship comes to an end. Even
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
8/17
after cancellation of such Agreement to Sell, the status of tenant is
not restored and as such in other words, on the date of execution of
aforesaid Agreement to Sell their status as that of landlord and
tenant changed into a new status as that of a purchaser and a seller.
During the subsistence of the Agreement to Sell dated 01.09.2011,
Md. Salauddin sold the property to the plaintiffs on 17.10.2011.
Neither notice was issued to the defendant-petitioner nor the
advance money was refunded by the original owner to the
petitioner. Reliance has been placed in the case of K.S.
Manjunath v. Moorasavirappa reported in 2025 SCC Online
SC 2378 wherein it has been held that original vendees had
performed their part of contract to the extent required, and had
consistently been ready and willing to perform their remaining
obligations under the ATS. It is further submitted that the two suits
relating to the same property; one for eviction and other for
Specific Performance of Contract should be tried together to avoid
conflicting decisions as the core issue in both the suits are
interwind. It is submitted that Court can pass an order to decide
both the suits analogously ensuring the justice and efficacious
resolution and the title suit of the petitioner is pending for final
adjudication. The Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2012 should be remitted
to the lower court to hear the same along with the suit for Specific
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
9/17
performance of Contract i.e., Suit No. 51 of 2012 to avoid the
conflicting judgment.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh,
learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties submitted
that the eviction suit was filed by the opposite parties for eviction
on the ground of personal necessity and not claiming the arrears of
rent in the present suit, although it was due which shows the
urgent and bonafide requirement of the plaintiffs but the premises
was locked by the defendant-petitioner for about 14 years. Learned
senior counsel further submitted that it is a well settled law that a
suit filed under Section 11(1)(C) of the BBC Act has to be
adjudicated and decided without any further delay in a summary
proceeding by adopting the special procedure prescribed under
Section 14 of the BBC Act, which has been done in the present
case. Per contra, from cross-examination of D.W. 4 namely, Mithu
Kumar Soni, it appears that in cross-examination, in paragraph 9,
he has stated that defendant-petitioner works at his another shop
situated at Mauna Chowk.
12. Before filing of eviction suit, defendant-petitioner
had closed the shop and had started the business in another shop
situated at Mohalla- Mauna Chowk which is still operating since
2012. It is further submitted that after appearance in the eviction
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
10/17
suit, the defendant started every gimmick to delay the disposal of
the suit. He filed a petition for stay of proceeding of Title Suit No.
51 of 2012, which was rejected all along then he prayed for
analogous hearing of both the suits which was denied by the court
upto this Court. Thereafter, the defendant applied for transfer of
suit to another court which also took some time and in this way, he
wasted seven valuable years. Ultimately, the plaintiffs’ evidence
started in the year 2019 and concluded. Thereafter, the defendant-
petitioner delayed the matter by not examining his witnesses and
taking unnecessary adjournments.
13. On the other hand, the plaintiffs are sitting idle
because the only shop purchased by them is not being vacated by
the defendant-petitioner, who is fighting frivolous litigation. It is
worth while to mention that the defendant has not paid a single pie
towards rent since December, 2011, which is due to him. The
findings with regard to the ownership and relationship as well as
bonafide requirement of the plaintiffs have been proved by the
plaintiffs and the learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit in
favour of the plaintiffs-opposite parties.
14. From the materials available on record, it is apparent
that vide registered sale deed dated 17.10.2011 executed by Md.
Salauddin, the suit property was sold to the plaintiffs. It is
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
11/17
admitted case of the parties that the premises, in question,
originally belonged to Md. Salauddin. The said sale deed has
remained valid till now. Hence, the plaintiffs-opposite parties are
owner/landlord of the suit premises. This Court is relying upon a
decision of Apex Court in case of M. M. Quasim Vs. Manohar
Lal Sharma and others 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.
15. So far question of relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties is concerned, it is admitted case of the
defendant-petitioner that he was tenant of Md. Salauddin, who
transferred the suit property to the plaintiffs. The transfer took
place with all incidents of right, title and interest of the lessor and
the transferee is entitled to sue the existing tenant on the ground of
personal necessity even if the tenant has not attorned the tenancy
under him. This view has been taken in the case of Dinesh Kumar
Purbey Vs. Mahesh Kumar Poddar reported in (1991) 1 PLJR
650. In the case of Kalawati Tripathi & Ors. Vs. Damayanti
Devi & Ors. reported in (1992) 2 PLJR 214, the Division Bench
of this Court has held that the attornment by tenant is not essential
to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee and,
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
12/17
in that view of the matter, the title of the assignee is complete. The
assignor goes out, divested of his title and ceases to be the
landlord; comes in the assignee vested with his assignor’s title, the
title of the landlord. So, the assignee is the landlord.
16. So far the question of partial eviction is concerned, it
is quite apparent that the plaintiffs have pleaded that they had
bonafide personal requirements of the suit premises, but the
defendant nowhere pleaded that the requirement of the plaintiffs
would be satisfied by partial eviction. Although it is settled law
that once personal necessity is proved, the onus shifts on the tenant
to satisfy that partial eviction would satisfy the personal necessity
of the plaintiffs. Reference in this regard may be made to the
decision of this Court in the case of Food Corporation of India
and Others Vs. Vishun Properties and Enterprises & Ors.
reported in 1995 BBCJ 711 as well as in the case of M/s Bata
India Ltd. v. Dr. Md. Qamruzzama reported in (1993) 1 PLJR
87 (D.B.) and also in the case of Hira Lal Das v. Loknath
Newatia reported in (2014) 4 PLJR 476. The learned trial court
has held that the plaintiffs have proved their personal necessity.
This plea of the plaintiffs have not been contested by the
defendant-petitioner before the trial court. The question of partial
eviction has not been raised by the defendant. Reference in this
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
13/17
regard may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Anamika Roy v. Jatindra Chowrasiya & Ors. reported
in (2013) 6 SCC 270. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforementioned decision has held that :-
“Defendant neither before the appellate court nor before
the trial court or in the High Court has asserted that a portion of
the premises will satisfy the requirement of the
plaintiffs/appellants”.
17. In the present case, the suit premises is admeasuring
9ft 6 inch x 11 ft 6 inch (total area 109.25 sq ft.)
18. The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs came to a
clear finding and the court below has rightly held that the plaintiffs
are entitled to bring the suit for personal necessity and it is in good
faith. As such, the plaintiffs require the suit premises for thier
business and this fact has not been denied by the defendant. In the
such circumstances, the findings of the learned court below that
the plaintiffs have bonafide personal requirements of the suit
premises appears to be legal and proper.
19. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Kasthuri Radhakrishnan Vs. M. Chinniyan reported in
(2016) 3 SCC 296, the revisional jurisdiction under the Rent
Control Acts is circumscribed by limitation and the revisional
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
14/17
court is only to see whether order for eviction is according to law
or not. Their Lordships have observed as follows:-
“….. So far as the issue
pertaining to exercise of revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court while
hearing revision petition arising out of
eviction matter is concerned, it remains
no more res integra and stands settled
by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v.
Dilbahar Singh [Hindustan Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9
SCC 78: (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 723). R.M.
Lodha, C.J., the learned Chief Justice
speaking for the Bench held in para 43
thus: (SCC pp. 101-102)
“43. We hold, as we
must, that none of the above Rent
Control Acts entitles the High
Court to interfere with the
findings of fact recorded by the
first appellate court/first
appellate authority because on
reappreciation of the evidence, its
view is different from the
court/authority below. The
consideration or examination of
the evidence by the High Court in
revisional jurisdiction under these
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
15/17Acts is confined to find out that
finding of 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 has been
arrived at without perverse
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 as to 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
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
16/17propriety of the impugned
decision or the order, the High
Court shall not exercise its power
as an appellate power to
reappreciate or reassess 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 be satisfied
that the decision is according to
law, it may examine whether the
order impugned before it suffers
from procedural illegality or
irregularity.”
20. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court does not
find that the learned court below has committed any error of
jurisdiction and illegality in passing the impugned judgment. This
Court is also not persuaded to hold that the judgment and order
passed by the Court below for eviction is not in accordance with
law.
21. The revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.
22. The stay of further proceedings of Execution Case
No. 14 of 2024 pending in the court of Sub Judge-II, Saran at
Chapra granted vide order dated 02.07.2024 is hereby vacated.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2024 dt.11-03-2026
17/17
23. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
Sankalp/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 21.11.2025 Uploading Date 12.03.2026 Transmission Date N/A