Patna High Court
Shyam Narayan Gupta vs Rishi Raj on 21 March, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.71 of 2023
======================================================
1. Shyam Narayan Gupta Son of Late Barhu Saw @ Barhu Lal Saw R/o
Jagdeopath, Baily Road, Murlichak, P.S.-Hawaii Adda, P.O.-B.V. College,
District-Patna.
2. Shiv Narayan Gupta, Son of Late Barhu Saw @ Barhu Lal Saw R/o
Jagdeopath, Baily Road, Murlichak, P.S.-Hawaii Adda, P.O.- B.V. College,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Rishi Raj, S/o Sri Arya Jai Raj Gupta, R/o Mohalla Saguna, P.S.-Danapur,
P.O.-Danapur Cantt, District- Patna and is running on Business in the Shop
Situated at Mohalla Jagdeo Path, P.S.- Hawai Adda, District- Patna.
2. Shyam Babu Gupta @ Shyam Babu Prasad, S/o Late Barhu Sao R/o-
Mohalla- Jagdeo Path, P.S.- Hawai Adda, P.O.- B.V. College, Dist.- Patna-
14.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
the respondents.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
25.08.2022
passed by the learned Munsif-II, Patna in Title
Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the
application dated 08.05.2019 filed by the respondent no.2 under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter 'the Code') has been allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.71 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2016
which has been filed by the petitioners as well as their brother
one Shyam Babu Gupta against respondent no.1 for eviction of
suit premises. The respondent no.2 is also a brother of the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and respondent no.2 are all sons of one
Barhu Saw who was also having one more son by the name of
Raj Narayan Gupta. The brothers separated and the suit property
came in possession of Raj Narayan Gupta who let out the suit
premises to respondent no.1. Raj Narayan Gupta was unmarried
and died on 20.02.2014 leaving behind his brothers as
heirs/legal representatives. After death of Raj Narayan Gupta,
the suit property devolved upon the plaintiffs as well as
respondent no.2. The tenant respondent no.1 stopped paying rent
to the plaintiffs/petitioners and thereafter he was served with
notice to vacate the premises. The tenant appeared and admitted
that the plaintiffs have become landlords after death of Raj
Narayan Gupta and he also admitted that he had not been paying
rent to the new landlords but at the same time he took the plea
that he has deposited Rs. 2,75,000/- as security deposit with
Shyam Babu Gupta, respondent no.2 who claimed that the suit
premises came to him as the same was given to him by Raj
Narayan Gupta and started realizing rent after execution of a
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.71 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
Kirayanama dated 05.01.2015 and rent was enhanced to Rs.
4,000/- per month from Rs. 2500/- which was the previous rent.
Learned counsel further submits that in the eviction suit, the
respondent no.2 filed an application seeking impleadment and
the learned trial court without hearing the petitioners, allowed
the application though a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the
defendant. Title Suit No. 5700 of 2014 is also pending between
the plaintiffs and respondent no.2 before the court of learned
Sub Judge-1st, Patna for adjudication/declaration and title
regarding the suit property. Unless there is declaration about the
right, title and possession of the respondent, he has no exclusive
claim over the suit property. Moreover, in the eviction suit, filed
by the plaintiffs/petitioners, only issue is to be decided by the
learned trial court is whether there exists any landlord tenant
relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant and there is
no scope for respondent no.2 to get himself impleaded as the
court cannot declare the title of the parties in the eviction suit
and respondent no.2 is neither necessary nor proper party for
adjudication of the determination of landlord tenant relationship
and payment of rent. Even in absence of the respondent no.2,
decree could be passed and no relief has been sought against
respondent no.2 by the plaintiffs. Thus, the learned counsel
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.71 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same
be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.2 vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.2
got the suit premises after death of his brother Raj Narayan
Gupta as Raj Narayan Gupta united with respondent no.2 and
they had been residing in jointness and after his death,
respondent no.2 came into possession of the estate of deceased
Raj Narayan Gupta and started realizing rent from the tenant.
After filing of the suit by the plaintiffs, the defendant/respondent
no.1 stopped paying rent to respondent no.2 and therefore,
respondent no.2 was forced to intervene in the matter and sought
his impleadment in the eviction suit. Even the Title Suit No.
5700 of 2014 is pending between the parties with regard to the
suit property.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submissions of the parties and the issue involved, it is apparent
that the respondent no.2 sought impleadment in an eviction suit
filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. It is settled law that in a suit
for eviction, the court is not concerned with the title of the
parties and what is at stake is only whether there is any
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.71 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and if it
is proved, then other claim of the petitioners like default of
payment of rent or issue of eviction would come into play. But
there is no scope for any person to claim or assert his title in
eviction suit. Such a person could not be necessary or proper
party because no relief is sought against such person and his
presence is not even necessary or proper for effective
determination of the question involved in the eviction suit.
Moreover, the petitioners and respondent no.2 are already before
the court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their title
with regard to the suit property. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that the learned trial court erred while passing the impugned
order. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable and the
same is set aside.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
balmukund/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
