Patna High Court – Orders
Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited vs Manorma Jha, on 20 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.142 of 2025
======================================================
Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited having its Regd. Office at 23A, Shah
Industrial Estate, Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400053 and
having its Patna Office at Shashi Lane, S.P. Verma Road, Post G.P.O, P.S.
Gandhi Maidan, Town and District Patna represented through its Branch
Manager Prashuram Roy, Male, aged about 74 Years, son of Late Triveni Roy,
resident of S.P. Verma Road, Patna P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Town and District
Patna-800001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Manorma Jha, wife of late Amrendra Jha. resident of Plot No. 20B,
Patliputra Colony, P.O and P.S. Patliputra, Town and District Patna-800813.
2. Saket Kumar Jha, son of late Amrendra Jha. resident of Plot No. 20B,
Patliputra Colony, P.O and P.S. Patliputra, Town and District Patna-800813.
3. Rakesh Kumar Jha, son of Late Amrendra Jha. resident of Plot No. 20B,
Patliputra Colony, P.O and P.S. Patliputra, Town and District Patna-800813.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lovekush Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Varun Krishna Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
7 20-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the opposite party.
2. The civil revision application no. 142 of 2025 has
been preferred under the proviso to Section 14(8) of the Bihar
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (as
amended in 1982) (Hereinafter referred to as “the BBC Act”)
against the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2025 passed by
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-III, Patna Sadar(hereinafter
referred to as “Trial Court”) in Eviction Suit No. 69 of 2015
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
2/16
whereby and where under the learned trial court decreed the
eviction suit filed under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of
the BBC Act. The learned Trial Court directed the
petitioner/defendant to vacate and hand over vacant physical
possession of the suit premises. The suit premises constitute the
entire first floor of the old block at Plot No. 20B, Patliputra
Colony, Patna.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit
premises form part of a double-storeyed building situated at Plot
No. 20B, Patliputra Colony, Patna, owned by the plaintiffs, who
are the widow of Late Amrendra Jha and his two sons. The
ground floor comprises the eastern half in occupation of the
plaintiffs themselves, consisting of one hall, two bedrooms, one
drawing room, dining space, two bathrooms, and one kitchen,
the western half of the house comprises two separate tenanted
units measuring 850 sq. ft. and 360 sq. ft. respectively. On the
first floor, the suit premises constitute the largest block under
the tenancy of the petitioner since 01.06.2003, initially through
successive registered lease deeds for 11 months each, with the
last unregistered lease deed dated 11.07.2009 for a period of
three years expiring on 30.07.2012, rendering the tenancy
month-to-month thereafter upon service of notice of termination.
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
3/16
4. Further, Plaintiff No. 1 had earlier instituted
Eviction Suit No. 73 of 2012 before the court of Sub Judge-I,
Patna Sadar, impleading the petitioner/defendant, its Patna
branch, and Prashuram Roy as defendants, seeking eviction inter
alia on the grounds of expiry of lease period and a general
averment of “bonafide personal necessity” as pleaded in
paragraphs 9 and 12 of the plaint thereof (Ext. A), without
specifying the nature thereof. Concomitantly, amid alleged
threats of forceful dispossession by the plaintiffs or their
associates, the petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 448 of 2012
seeking perpetual injunction against such eviction.
5. Subsequently, all three plaintiffs filed the present
Eviction Suit under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the
BBC Act before the learned Trial Court, specifically pleading
that plaintiff No. 2, a Senior Analyst employed with Major and
Minor Exims Pvt. Ltd. and residing outside Patna with his wife
and two grown-up daughters. He had decided to establish his
base and head office at Patna for operating as a market analyst,
with the ground floor portion in the plaintiffs’ occupation being
most suitable for setting up the office and laboratory. The suit
premises were reasonably and bonafide required for residential
accommodation of plaintiff No. 2 and his family to enable them
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
4/16
to reside jointly with the aged plaintiff No. 1 and no other
suitable alternative accommodation was available with the
plaintiffs. The requirement could not be substantially fulfilled by
partial eviction of the suit premises. The earlier Suit No. 73 of
2012 was not being pursued owing to subsequent developments
necessitating the present action under the summary procedure.
6. The petitioner/defendant filed its written statement
on 21.09.2015, inter alia contending that the tenancy was
month-to-month after the unregistered lease denied they pleaded
personal necessity as sham and motivated alleging availability
of ample alternative spaces including the plaintiffs’ own ground
floor portion and a recently vacated unit on the first floor (about
one year prior to suit). Petitioner/defendant also highlighted the
inconsistency between the general plea in Ext. A and the specific
necessity now urged, evincing malafides and referring to the
threats prompting Title Suit No. 448 of 2012.
7. The learned Trial Court has examined the pleadings
as well as oral and documentary evidence of both plaintiffs and
defendants and framed seven issues which are as follows:
I. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
defendant is their tenant in respect of the
suit premises as described in Schedule-I of
the plaint?
II. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
5/16
require the suit premises reasonably and in
good faith for their own occupation?
III. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
have no other reasonable suitable
accommodation?
IV. Whether the plaintiffs prove that their
requirement cannot be satisfied by partial
eviction of the suit premises?
V. Whether the defendant proves that the
plaintiffs had threatened to evict the
defendant forcibly from the suit premises?
VI. Whether the defendant is liable to be
evicted from the suit premises?
VII. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are
entitled?
The plaintiffs adduced evidence through PW-1 (Manorma Jha),
PW-2 (Rakesh Kumar Jha), PW-3 (Saket Kumar Jha), and Ext.1
(project report filed on 11.01.2016) which details about the
proposed office/lab setup. The petitioner examined DW-1 to
DW-7 including Prashuram Roy as DW-2. The petitioner relied
on Ext. A. The trial court decreed the suit vide the impugned
judgment after due appreciation of evidence.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
assailed the impugned judgment and decree as vitiated by
material irregularities and perversity warranting revisional
interference. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court
had merely reproduced the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
6/16
DW-1 to DW-7 in paragraphs of the judgment without any
meaningful analysis or reasoned application thereof to the issues
framed, thereby failing to discharge its primary duty under
Order XX Rule 1 and Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC by way of
analogy, occasioning failure of justice. Further he submitted that
reliance on Ext.1 (project report) filed belatedly on 11.01.2016
long after institution of the suit was wholly erroneous as the
same was not contemporaneous with the plaint averments and
ought to have been eschewed as an afterthought.
8.i. He Further submitted that the learned Trial Court
was stated to have completely overlooked Ext. A (the plaint of
Eviction Suit No. 73 of 2012) wherein no whisper of the specific
necessity which is now pleaded was made, with only a bald
reference to “personal necessity” in paragraphs 9 and 12 thereof,
thereby exposing the malafide intent of the plaintiffs in
fabricating a subsequent necessity to circumvent the earlier
litigation. He also submitted that the threats issued to the
petitioner’s representatives, culminating in Title Suit No. 448 of
2012 have been ignored, further buttressing the malafides.
Learned counsel for petitioner lastly submitted that the
availability of alternative accommodations, including the
plaintiffs’ ground floor portion lying partly vacant and the
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
7/16
recently vacated first-floor unit, rendered the pleaded necessity
unreasonable and unworthy of credence. In sum, it was prayed
that the decree be set aside, the suit be dismissed and the
petitioner be granted consequential reliefs.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite
parties submitted that the revision was assailed as non-
maintainable in limine for want of locus standi on the part of
Prashuram Roy, who filed it purportedly as Branch Manager
without annexing any board resolution or authorization letter
from the petitioner-company especially when his own deposition
as DW2 revealed retirement in January 2018 rendering the filing
a nullity. He placed reliance on State Bank of Travancore v.
Kingston Computer India Pvt. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 524]
(paragraphs 8 to 14), in which Apex Court has held that “in
absence of resolution by the Board of Director delegating power
to authorize another person to file a suit on behalf of Company
was nothing but scrape of paper because of the fact that
authority letter was filed in the aforesaid case.” In the present
case authority letter as well as resolution of the Board has not
been filed by the Defendant to contest the suit or to file the civil
revision. He further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in a case of MS Nibro Limited v. National
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
8/16
Insurance Company [AIR 1991 Delhi 25] (paragraphs 23 and
25) that Order 29 Rule-1 of the C.P.C. does not authorize person
mentioned therein to institute suits on behalf of the Corporation,
thus unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on
a particular Director, he has no authority to institute a suit on
behalf of the Company Needless to say that such a power can be
conferred by the Board of Directors only by passing a resolution
in that regard.
9.i. He submitted that the learned Trial Court had
meticulously appreciated the evidence in paragraphs 10-17, 30,
and 31 of the judgment, rightly holding the personal necessity
bonafide and reasonable on the strength of consistent
testimonies of PW1 to PW3 corroborated by Ext.1, which
detailed the lab/office requirements. Learned counsel for the
opposite parties relied upon Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan,
Civil Appeal No. 3222 of 2025 in which Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that Landlord is the best judge to decide which of his
property should be vacated for satisfying his need and the tenant
has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should
get vacated for the need alleged in the suit for eviction and
therefore claim of the defendant/ tenant to raise objection about
the other available premises is not sustainable in the eyes of
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
9/16
law.
9.ii. He lastly submitted that the earlier Eviction Suit
No. 73 of 2012 was expressly withdrawn upon subsequent
developments, as pleaded and accepted. Partial eviction was
inapplicable as the petitioner had secured alternate
accommodation, the need was for the entire block and the
expedited disposal pursuant to Civil Misc. Case No. 1211 of
2023 (disposed 04.01.2024) underscored no dilatory tactics. The
revision was thus prayed to be dismissed with heavy costs, and
vacation directed forthwith.
10. 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 13.05.2025 passed in Eviction Suit
No. 69 of 2015, was pleased to allow the suit.
11. The learned trial Court recorded a categorical
finding that the plaintiffs/opposite parties is the owner and
landlord of the suit premises and that the relationship of landlord
and tenant between the parties stands admitted. It was further
held that the rate of monthly rent and the occupation of the
petitioners as a tenant in the suit premises were not in dispute.
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
10/16
The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on
record, accepted the case of the plaintiffs/opposite parties that
the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required for their
own use and occupation. The learned Trial Court further
accepted the evidence that the son of the plaintiffs/opposite
party (Plaintiff No. 2) need to start a separate business in the suit
premises and that the location of the suit premises is suitable for
such purpose.
12. Upon an overall appreciation of the pleadings,
evidence and material available on record, the learned Trial
Court concluded that the plaintiffs/opposite parties had
successfully established their entitlement to a decree of eviction
under Section 11(1)(c) of the BBC Act, 1982. Consequently, the
suit was decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite
parties and against the defendants/petitioners. The petitioners
were directed to vacate the suit premises Plot no. 20B within a
period of sixty days from the date of the judgment, failing which
the plaintiffs/opposite parties was granted liberty to obtain
eviction of the petitioners through the process of the Court
13. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the
scope of revisional jurisdiction under the said provision is
extremely limited as the present Civil Revision has been
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
11/16
preferred under Section 14 (8) of the BBC Act, 1982. The
revisional Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and cannot
reappreciate evidence merely because a different view is
possible. Interference is permissible only when the findings of
the learned trial Court are shown to be perverse, based on no
evidence, or suffering from jurisdictional error. The legal
position in this regard stands conclusively settled by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (supra). In
paragraph 43, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“The revisional court does not have the
power to re-appreciate evidence. The
jurisdiction is confined to examine whether
the findings of fact recorded by the court
below are according to law and do not
suffer from perversity or jurisdictional
error.”
In the present case, the learned trial Court has framed specific
issues, appreciated oral and documentary evidence adduced by
both sides, and gave reasoned findings. No perversity or
jurisdictional error has been demonstrated warranting
interference.
14. Coming to the core issue of bonafide personal
necessity, the law is well settled that the landlord is the best
judge of his requirement, and the Court cannot substitute its own
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
12/16
wisdom for that of the landlord. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal,
reported in (2005) 8 SCC 252, held in paragraph 15 that:
“It is always the prerogative of the landlord
to decide how and in what manner he
should live or conduct his business. The
tenant cannot dictate the terms to the
landlord.”
15. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of
evidence, accepted this requirement as genuine and bonafide.
The nature and test of bonafide requirement have been
elaborately explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv
Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, reported in
(1999)6SCC 222, paragraph 11 observed that:
“The requirement of the landlord must be
honest, genuine and conceived in good
faith. It need not be a dire necessity but
must be a real and sincere need.” Applying
the above test, the learned Trial Court has
rightly concluded that the respondents’ need
is honest and real, and not a mere pretext
for eviction.
Applying the above test, the learned Trial Court has rightly
concluded that the opposite parties’ need is honest and real, and
not a mere pretext for eviction.
16. On the core issue of bonafide and reasonable
personal necessity, the law gives primacy to the landlord’s
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
13/16
assessment of his own need. In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan,
reported in (1996) 5 SCC 353, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
categorically held in paragraph 2 that the landlord is the best
judge of his residential requirement and the tenant cannot
dictate the manner of his living. Further, in Ramashray Singh v.
Bindeshwari Prasad, reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 91, paragraph
10, it was held that requirement of premises for dependent
family members is a legitimate and bonafide requirement.
17. The contention for partial eviction has been
consistently followed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in
PLJR 2005 (3) 719, PLJR 2013 (2) 491, PLJR 2005 (3) 19,
and PLJR 2016 (4) 20, wherein it has been held that the plea of
partial eviction must be specifically pleaded and proved by the
tenant and cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time at
the revisional stage. With regard to the existence of cause of
action, it is settled law that cause of action is not confined to a
single event but consists of a bundle of facts which may arise at
different stages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.B.C.
Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, reported in (1989) 2 SCC
163, held in paragraph 12 that cause of action comprises all
those facts which the plaintiff must prove to obtain relief and
may arise partly at one place and partly at another.
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
14/16
18. Further, in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant
Charity Commissioner, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137, the
Supreme Court held in paragraph 15 that the cause of action
crystallizes when the right to sue accrues, particularly upon
termination of the legal relationship. Applying this principle, the
co-ordinate bench of this Court in Ram Prasad v. Sita Ram,
reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 12, held in paragraph 7 that issuance
of a notice terminating tenancy furnishes a fresh and valid cause
of action for eviction. From the aforesaid principles it is clear
that the finding of the learned Trial Court that the opposite
parties had a valid and continuing cause of action.
19. The contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner relating to the personal need of the Respondent’s
son, wherein it is well settled principle laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, reported
in (2001) 2 SCC 604, held in paragraph 10: “Subsequent events
which strengthen the bona fide requirement of the landlord can
be taken into consideration.” In the present case, the primary
ground of eviction remains the personal necessity of the
opposite parties
20. Upon an overall consideration of the pleadings,
evidence, and settled principles of law, this Court finds that the
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
15/16
learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction properly, applied
the correct legal tests, and recorded findings supported by
evidence. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any
illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity so as to warrant
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has
correctly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and the settled
principles of law governing eviction on the ground of bonafide
personal necessity under Section 11 (1) (c) of the BBC Act,
1982. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court
regarding the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, the
bonafide and reasonable requirement of the opposite parties for
the suit premises, and the non-feasibility of partial eviction are
based on cogent evidence and do not suffer from any perversity,
illegality or jurisdictional error.
22. This Court further finds that the scope of
interference under Section 14 (8) of the BBC. Act is limited, and
the present Civil Revision does not disclose any ground
warranting interference with the well-reasoned judgment and
decree dated 13.05.2025 passed in Eviction Suit No. 69 of 2015.
The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of
Patna High Court C.R. No.142 of 2025(7) dt.20-04-2026
16/16
merit and do not persuade this Court to take a different view.
Accordingly, the present Civil Revision No. 142 of 2025 is
dismissed. The judgment and decree 13.05.2025 passed by
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-III, Patna Sadar in Eviction
Suit No. 69 of 2015 are hereby affirmed and pending IA with
regard to the civil revision no. 142 of 2025 is also disposed off.
23. The petitioner/defendant is directed to vacate and
hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises, as described
in the plaint, to the opposite parties/plaintiffs within a period of
sixty (60) days from passing of the order of this Court otherwise
opposite parties will have right to vacate the suit premise as per
process of law.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Mayank/-
U
[ad_1]
Source link
