[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Manish Kumar Agarwalla vs Charitar Prasad Sharma on 11 December, 2025

                                                                           2025:JHHC:37247




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Civil Revision No. 32 of 2012
                              --------

Manish Kumar Agarwalla, son of Sri Kamanaya Lal Agarwalla, resident of Panchgarhi Bazar, Katras, P.O. & P.S. Katras, Dist.-Dhanbad ... ... Defendant/Petitioner Versus Charitar Prasad Sharma, son of Late Kedar Nath Sharma, resident of Panchgarhi Bazar, Katras, P.O. & P.S. Katras, Dist. Dhanbad ... ...Opp. Party/Plaintiff

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

--------

   For the Petitioner        : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
   For the Opp. Party        : Mrs. Mohua Palit, Advocate
                             --------
                           th
   Order No. 39/ Dated: 11 December, 2025

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Opp.

party.

2. The instant Civil Revision is directed against the impugned

judgment dated 02.06.2012 (decree singed on 14.06.2012) passed in

Title Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2004 by Learned Civil Judge, Junior

Division-II, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the

plaintiff/opp. party was decreed and the petitioner/defendant has been

ordered to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of

order, failing which, the plaintiff shall obtain the possession through

process of court along with the cost of the suit.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiff/opp.

party has instituted a Title Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2004 seeking a decree

for eviction of the defendant from the tenanted suit premises. The case of

the plaintiff is that he is owner of the shops situated in Khata No. 13,

Plot No. 99 (old) of Mouza Shyamdih, P.S. Katras, Dist.-Dhanbad and

2025:JHHC:37247

inducted the defendant as a tenant on the basis of rent note dated

01.12.1998 fixing monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. The plaintiff carries

workshop of Automobiles and the above shops are situated just beside

his workshop. It is further alleged that since the workshop business of

the plaintiff has expanded in the course of time, hence plaintiff requires

the suit premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation to extend

his own business. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 25.11.2000 to the

defendant with respect to vacate the suit premises but no reply was sent.

The defendant is not acceding to any oral request of the plaintiff and

ultimately, flatly denied to vacate the suit premises on 05.03.2004, which

furnished the cause of action for the suit. Accordingly, title suit No. 07 of

2004 was instituted but the defendant did not appear to contest and the

suit proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.07.2004. The defendant later

on appeared on 06.08.2004 and requested before the learned trial Court

to accept his written submission and leave to contest which was

dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2005. The defendant challenged the

aforesaid order by filing W.P.(C) No. 35 of 2006 before the Hon'ble

High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2006.

Thereafter, the defendant filed civil review No. 47 of 2006 which was

also dismissed on 15.01.2010. It is also pleaded that since the suit against

the defendant proceeded ex-parte, hence the plaintiff filed a petition

under Section 14(4) requesting eviction of tenant/defendant who has not

filed any objection/written statement but the same was dismissed vide

order dated 23.03.2006, then plaintiff against said dismissal filed W.P.

2025:JHHC:37247

13.06.2009 with direction that "it is well settled that even for passing ex-

parte decree of eviction on the ground for personal necessity the Court

has to be satisfied that the personal ground exist and a decree for partial

eviction will satisfy the requirement or not."

4. The learned trial Court has settled following issues for

determination:-

(i) Whether there exists a landlord tenant relationship between the

original plaintiff and original defendant?

(ii) Whether the suit premise required for the personal use of the

original plaintiff was Bonafide?

(iii) Whether the personal necessity of the original plaintiff will be

satisfied on partial eviction?

(iv) Whether the original plaintiff comes within the purview of owner

in terms of Section 11(1)(c) of BBC Act of 2000.

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief?

5. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined by

the plaintiff namely P.W.-1 Balram Rawani, P.W.-2 Krishna Prasad

Jayaswal, P.W.-3 Janardan Singh, P.W.-4 Charitra Prasad Sharma, P.W.-5

Suresh Prasad Singh and P.W.-6 Kailash Prasad Lala.

6. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary

evidences has also been adduced:

Ext.1 -Rent Note dated 01.12.1998 between Manish Agarwalla

and Charitar Prasad Sharma

Ext. 2 -Reply dated 22.12.2000 by Advocate on behalf of

Defendant to Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff

2025:JHHC:37247

7. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence adduced by

the plaintiff decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed

the suit which has been assailed in this revision.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the

specific provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease,

Rent and Eviction) Control Act, the landlord seeking eviction of the

tenant on the ground of personal necessity must be owner of the

premises. Although the term "landlord" has been defined elaborately

which does not require ownership of the property. In the instant case, the

original plaintiff was examined as P.W.-4 who has not filed any

documentary evidence showing his title over the suit property rather he

has produced the documents in connection with lands and premises

pertaining to Khata No. 22, Plat No. 119, 120, 121 and 128. Although

suit property pertains to Khata No. 13, Plot No. 99. The plaintiff himself

admits in his evidence that C.S. Khatiyan of Khata No. 13, Plot No. 99,

Mouza Shayamdih is recorded in the name of State of Bihar (now

State of Jharkhand). The original plaintiff had also instituted a title Suit

No. 77 of 2003 against one Saryu Rai, who had also instituted a title Suit

No. 152 of 2000 with respect to the suit premises. Under such

circumstances, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is not owner of the suit

premises rather it belongs to State Government and the learned trial

Court only on the basis of landlord tenant relationship as per definition

of "Landlord" under Section 2(f) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent

and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 has wrongly held the plaintiff as owner

of the suit premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed

2025:JHHC:37247

the impugned judgment on issue of partial eviction of the defendant

decided by the learned trial Court as well as personal bona fide

requirement of the plaintiff of the suit premises for his own personal use

and occupation.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opp. party/plaintiff has

vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the

petitioner and submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and

aptly touched the aforesaid issues vide issue No. 1, 4 and 5 and decided

the aforesaid issues in the light of reported judgments as well as in the

light of evidence adduced in the case relied on by the parties. Learned

trial Court has very wisely interpreted the provision of Section 2(f) of the

Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 which

defines the term "landlord" and also the definition of word "tenant". It is

well settled principle of law as annunciated under Section 116 of the

Indian Evidence Act that the tenant cannot go behind the ownership of

his landlord and if he is inducted by a person as a tenant, he is estopped

from claiming that the person who inducted him is not owner of the

property. The definition of landlord does not include the ownership of

property, moreover, for eviction of the tenant under any of the grounds

under Section 11 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act does not require that the landlord must be owner of the

property. Litigation about the ownership is still pending with the State

Government and the plaintiff. There is no doubt that the plaintiff is in

possession of the suit premises without any interruption or hindrance at

the instance of the State government. Therefore, plea taken by the

2025:JHHC:37247

petitioner is absolutely absurd and not tenable under law. Therefore,

well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court

suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference in this

revision which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

10. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and also

perused the record along with the impugned judgment.

11. From perusal of record along with impugned judgment, it appears

that admittedly, the petitioner (defendant) is tenant of the plaintiff.

Although, disputed property is situated at government land and

defendant has alleged that owner of the property is the Government not

the plaintiff, but it is also clear from the record that plaintiff has filed

title suit No. 77 of 2003 against the Government of Bihar which is

pending. It is trite that in a suit for eviction, the proof of ownership of

the tenanted premises is not to be strictly looked into as in a suit for

declaration of title. It is also settled law that tenant who entered premises

under landlord's rent deed cannot later dispute his ownership.

Section 2(f) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 2000 defines "landlord" thus:

"Landlord" includes the persons who for the time being is

receiving are is entitled to receive the rent of a building whether

on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account of or on

behalf of, for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent,

trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would

so receive the rent are being entitled to receive the rent, if the

building were let to a tenant".

2025:JHHC:37247

Thus, the landlord includes the person who for the time being

receives or entitled to receive rent of a building. The plaintiff has not to

prove that he is the owner of the suit premises but he has to prove that he

is the landlord of the suit premises under the provisions of Jharkhand

Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. From the record,

it is clear that plaintiff has successfully proved that he is the landlord of

the suit premises and also realized the rent from the defendant.

Therefore, plaintiff is the landlord of the suit premises. From the perusal

of the record, it also appears that learned trial Court has given thoughtful

consideration to the issues settled for determination of the case and

accordingly decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and has