Jaiprakash Sharma and Ors. Vs Rita Devi

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

¶14

... ... Defendants /Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

Rita Devi, wife of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, resident of Mohalla Ekpatiya, P.O. & P.S. and Dist.-Hazaribagh

¶17

… … Plaintiff /Opp. Party

¶18

----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶19

-------For the Petitioners : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advoate --------

¶20

Order No. 25/ Dated: 11^th December, 2025

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Opp. party.

¶22

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

¶23

1 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

¶24

2025:JHHC:37243

¶25

of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has been allowed.

¶26

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

¶27

2 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

¶28

2025:JHHC:37243

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

3 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

¶33

2025:JHHC:37243

¶34

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.

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

¶36

4 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

¶37

2025:JHHC:37243

¶38

settled for adjudication by the learned trial Court: -

¶39

(i) Is there any cause of action for the suit?

¶40

(ii) Is the suit be barred by law of limitation and adverse possession?

¶41

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of estoppel by conduct waiver and acquiescence?

¶42

(iv) Is the suit hit under the provision of Specific Relief Act?

¶43

(v) Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to the suit premises?

¶44

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is in need of the tenanted premises for her own use and occupation reasonably and in good faith?

¶45

(vii) Whether the partial eviction of the tenanted premises can fulfil the requirement of the plaintiff?

¶46

(viii) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as prayed?

¶47

(ix) To what other relief or reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?

¶48

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.

¶49

Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidences has also been adduced:

¶50

Ext. 1 to 1/a -Two Municipality Receipt No. 12751 and 8066

¶51

Ext.2 -Registered Envelope

¶52

Ext.2/a to 2/b-Two A.D.

¶53

Ext. 3 to 3/a -Three Receipt of Post Office for Registered Letter

¶54

Ext. 4 -Correction Slip in Mutation Ext.5 -Ground Rent Receipt No. 8040 5 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

¶55

2025:JHHC:37243

¶56

Ext.6 -Original Registered Deed Mark X -Advocate Notice Mark X/1 -Advocate Notice

¶57

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: -

¶58

Ext. A to A/1 -C.C. of Sale-Deed No. 8248/1971

¶59

Ext.B -Agreement to Sale dated 18.09.2008

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

6 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

¶63

2025:JHHC:37243

¶64

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.

¶65

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.

¶66

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.

¶67

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

¶68

7 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

¶69

2025:JHHC:37243

¶70

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.

¶71

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,

¶72

8 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

¶73

2025:JHHC:37243

¶74

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.

¶75

Pending I.As and interim order, if any, stand disposed and closed.

¶76

Let a copy of this order along with the Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned Court for information and needful.

¶77

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶78

11/12/2025 Basant Uploaded on 12.12.2025

¶79

9 C.R. No. 08 of 2015

Jaiprakash Sharma and Ors. v. Rita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiprakash Sharma and Ors. v. Rita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Pradhan Alias Kanhu Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Hembrom Alias Rameshwar Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand

Nisha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chanda Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepawali Paul Vs Jaswant Barla

Manish Kumar Agarwalla Vs Charitar Prasad Sharma