[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jaiprakash Sharma vs Rita Devi on 11 December, 2025
2025:JHHC:37243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 08 of 2015
--------
1. Jaiprakash Sharma, son of Late Rameshwar Lal Sharma, resident of
Bara Bazar, Subash Marg, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S.& Dist. Hazaribagh
2. (a). Mantu Sharma
(b). Santosh Sharma
(c). Suraj Sharma
(d). Neha Sharma
(e). Jyoti Sharma @ Parwati Sharma
All sons and daughters of Late Om Prakash Sharma
(f). Merra Sharma, W/o -Late Om Prakash Sharma
All R/o-Bara Bazar, Subash Marg, P.O., P.S. and Dist.-Hazaribagh
3. Satya Narain Sharma @ Toni Sharma @ Satya Narayan Sharma, son
of Late Rameshwar Lal Sharma, R/o-Bara Bazar, Subash Marg, P.O.,
P.S. and Dist.-Hazaribagh
... ... Defendants /Petitioners
Versus
1. Rita Devi, wife of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, resident of Mohalla
Ekpatiya, P.O. & P.S. and Dist.-Hazaribagh
... ... Plaintiff /Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advoate
--------
th
Order No. 25/ Dated: 11 December, 2025
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as
Opp. party.
2. The instant Civil Revision is directed against the impugned
judgment dated 16.12.2014 (decree singed on 23.12.2014) passed in
Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2010 by Learned Sr. Civil Judge-IV, Hazaribag,
whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff/opp. party on the
ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14
2025:JHHC:37243
of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has
been allowed.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff/opp. party has
instituted an Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2010 against the
defendants/petitioners, before the court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division),
Hazaribag, seeking decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit
premises, on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use and
occupation, under the provision of Section 11(1)(c) of Bihar Building
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. It is alleged that the suit
premises was originally belonged to one Mahabir Ram, which was let
out by him to father of the defendants namely Rameshwar Lal Sharma,
on month-to-month tenancy basis. After death of Mahabir Ram, his son
namely Gopal Prasad became the landlord, while the said Rameshwar
Lal Sharma continued as tenant in the suit premises. Subsequently,
Rameshwar Lal Sharma also died leaving behind his four sons namely
Jai Prakash Sharma, Om Prakash Sharma, Ved Prakash Sharma and
Satya Narayan Sharma. In the meantime, a family partition took place
amongst heirs of Mahabir Ram on 06.11.2001 and the suit property was
allotted in the share of Gopal Prasad and Chandrawati Prasad (wife of
his elder brother Ganesh Prasad). Accordingly, Gopal Prasad continued
to be the landlord of the premises and received rent from defendant No.
1 Jai Prakash Sharma who was Karta of the joint family, after death of
his father Rameshwar Lal Sharma. It is further alleged that the old
structure standing on the suit premises fell down due to deteriorate
condition except one room under the physical possession of defendant
2025:JHHC:37243
No. 1. While the brothers of the defendants shifted to other houses. It is
further submitted that upon death of Gopal Prasad, his sons Santosh
Kumar Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Subodh Kumar Gupta and
Chandrawati Prasad became the joint owner of the suit property, who by
virtue of registered sale deed No. 5009 dated 22.04.2010, sold the suit
property to the plaintiff. After purchase of the suit properties, the plaintiff
mutated her name in the records of municipal Hazaribag vide mutation
case No. 32/2010-11 dated 10.06.2010. It is further alleged that after
purchase of the suit premises, the plaintiff issued registered notices dated
15.06.2010 and 25.06.2010, respectively, informing the defendant No. 1
about the said purchase and also requested the payment of arrears of rent
as well as to vacate the suit premises. The defendant No. 1 did not reply
to the notices nor vacated the suit premises and even paid the rent.
Therefore, this suit was instituted to get the vacant possession of the suit
premises for her bona fide personal use and occupation.
Upon service of notice, the defendants appeared and filed written
statement with a leave to contest the suit which was rejected but the said
order was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
13.03.2012 by way of Civil Revision. As such, the written statement of
the defendants was taken on record.
The defendants have denied any relationship of landlord and
tenant with the plaintiff along with her right, title and interest over the
suit property. The defendants had claimed their possession over the suit
property as prospective purchaser by virtue of agreement to sale dated
18.09.2008 executed by Subodh Kr. Gupta and Sanjay Kr. Gupta, sons of
2025:JHHC:37243
Late Gopal Prasad. It is admitted that originally defendants' father
Rameshwar Lal Sharma was inducted as a tenant by landlord Mahabir
Ram, sometime in the year 1939, on monthly rent of Rs. 27, which was
enhanced to Rs. 75 per month. The father of the defendants made major
construction work in the suit premises for his residential purpose with
consent of the landlord and also opened a cloth shop in a room. It is
further pleaded that after death of Mahabir Ram, his son Gopal Prasad
became landlord and used to collect rent from the father of the
defendants. It is further alleged that after death of Gopal Prasad, a
partition took place among his heirs and the suit premises was allotted in
the share of Subodh Kr. Gupta and Sanjay Kr. Gupta, jointly and
therefore, the defendants are remitting the rent to Subodh Kr. Gupta and
Sanjay Kr. Gupta through money order. Later on, said Subodh Kr. Gupta
and Sanjay Kr. Gupta offered to sale the suit property to the defendants
and agreement to sale dated 18.09.2008 was executed by them and the
defendants have also paid Rs. 51,000/- out of total consideration money
of Rs. 5,51,000/-. The said agreement was duly notarized, while the
defendant No. 1 was allowed to continue in the possession of the suit
property, till the execution of the registered deed of sale, on payment of
balance consideration amount. The defendant No. 1 has also filed a title
suit No. 114/2010, for specific performance of the above contract against
his landlord, as such, the defendant has denied ownership possession as
well as the capacity of landlord of the defendant in respect of plaintiff
and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
2025:JHHC:37243
settled for adjudication by the learned trial Court: -
(i) Is there any cause of action for the suit?
(ii) Is the suit be barred by law of limitation and adverse possession?
(iii) Is the suit barred by law of estoppel by conduct waiver and
acquiescence?
(iv) Is the suit hit under the provision of Specific Relief Act?
(v) Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the
plaintiff and defendant with respect to the suit premises?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is in need of the tenanted premises for her
own use and occupation reasonably and in good faith?
(vii) Whether the partial eviction of the tenanted premises can fulfil the
requirement of the plaintiff?
(viii) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as prayed?
(ix) To what other relief or reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?
5. In the course of trial, altogether three witnesses were examined by
the plaintiff namely P.W.-1 Rita Devi, P.W.-2 Naresh Sao and P.W.-3
Kameshwar Ram.
6. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary
evidences has also been adduced:
Ext. 1 to 1/a -Two Municipality Receipt No. 12751 and 8066
Ext.2 -Registered Envelope
Ext.2/a to 2/b-Two A.D.
Ext. 3 to 3/a -Three Receipt of Post Office for Registered Letter
Ext. 4 -Correction Slip in Mutation
Ext.5 -Ground Rent Receipt No. 8040
2025:JHHC:37243
Ext.6 -Original Registered Deed
Mark X -Advocate Notice
Mark X/1 -Advocate Notice
7. On the other hand, defendants have also examined two witnesses
namely D.W.-1, Jai Prakash Sharma and D.W.-2, Parmeshwar Sao and
also adduced following documentary evidence: -
Ext. A to A/1 -C.C. of Sale-Deed No. 8248/1971
Ext.B -Agreement to Sale dated 18.09.2008
8. Learned trial Court after evaluating oral as well as documentary
evidence of the respective parties arrived at a definite conclusion that the
original landlord Mahabir Ram has inducted the father of the defendant
No. 1 as a tenant over the suit premises. The defendant No. 1 has also
admitted the above fact and further admitted that Gopal Prasad, son of
Mahabir Ram, inherited the suit property and he was also treated as a
landlord of the defendant No. 1. The suit premises has validly been
purchased by the plaintiff through registered sale-deed and the plaintiff
in her oral testimony has also stated that she sent a registered notice to
the defendant No. 1, prior to the purchase of the suit premises, so that
they may know in advance that she is going to purchase the suit property
and after purchase also, she has issued notice for eviction of the
defendants on account of her personal bona fide use and occupation.
9. On the other hand, the defendants are claiming only on the basis
of prospective purchaser since the year 2008 from the different
descendent of Gopal Prasad and there is no evidence that the sale deed
was ever executed in favour of defendants nor they have filed any rent
2025:JHHC:37243
receipt showing payment of rent to his intended vendor-cum-landlord.
Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant is imaginary and afterthought
to frustrate the genuine claim of the plaintiff.
10. Accordingly, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the
plaintiff with direction to the defendant to vacate the suit premises
(Schedule-A property) and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff,
failing which plaintiff will be put into Khas Possession through the
process of Court by evicting the defendants/their men and agents.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned
judgment and decree merely on the ground that the learned trial Court
has failed to consider that there was no relationship of landlord and
tenant between the plaintiff and defendants and the
defendants/petitioners are in possession of the suit premises under their
own right through agreement to sale executed by owner of the suit
property since 18.09.2008. Therefore, the impugned judgement and
decree is fit to be set aside allowing this revision.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opp. party/plaintiff has
submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly
considered the true aspects of the matter and arrived at right conclusion.
The claim of the defendants through notarized agreement to sale of the
suit property in the year 2008 has no leg to stand and creates no tenancy
right in favour of defendants, rather, the defendant/petitioner himself has
admitted that after death of original landlord namely Mahabir Ram, his
son, Gopal Prasad stepped into the shoes of the landlord and rent was
being paid to him. The registered sale deed has been executed in favour
2025:JHHC:37243
of the plaintiff through legal-heirs of said Gopal Prasad. Therefore, the
defendant No. 1 has never acquired any right, title and interest over the
suit property and the plaintiff after purchasing of the suit property
through a legal and valid manner will be deemed to be landlord and there
is no requirement of payment of rent to her. The learned trial Court has
committed no error of law in decreeing the suit. This Revision has no
merits and fit to be dismissed.
13. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the
parties and also perused the record along with the impugned judgment.
14. It appears that the plaintiff has stepped into the shoe of landlord
by purchasing the suit premises through registered sale deed in the year
2010-11 and she is also paying the cess and other municipal taxes after
mutating her name in the record of municipal corporation, Hazaribag.
The defendant No. 1 has also admitted that his father was inducted as a
tenant by the original landlord Mahabir Ram and after death of Mahabir
Ram, his son Gopal Prasad inherited the suit property and was treated as
a landlord by paying rent to him. The specific plea of the
defendants/petitioners is that he as prospective purchaser of the property
since the year 2008 through notary agreement to sale (Ext.-B) but the
said agreement never came into operation. The defendant has also failed
to bring on record any judgment/decree of specific performance of the
said agreement. Although he pleads that the suit was filed by him vide
title suit No. 114 of 2010. What was fate of the said suit has not been
brought on record. It is trite law that mere agreement to sale does not
convey any right, title and interest in any immovable property, moreover,
2025:JHHC:37243
the alleged vendor of the defendants have also not been examined as a
witness in this case to corroborate the aforesaid story propounded by the
defendants. The plaintiff/opp. party has been able to prove her case to
get vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants for her
personal bona fide use and occupation. Therefore, I do not find any
jurisdictional error or irregularity in the impugned judgement and decree
calling for any interference by way of this revision, which appears to be
devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
15. Pending I.As and interim order, if any, stand disposed and closed.
16. Let a copy of this order along with the Trial Court Record be sent
back to the concerned Court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
11/12/2025
Basant
Uploaded on 12.12.2025
