Tenant challenged a decree of eviction on the ground of the landlord's personal necessity for her son's cloth business. The High Court held that the unregistered 35-year agreement was invalid and the tenancy was month-to-month, and upheld the finding of bona fide need.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.90 of 2014
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Son of Sri Parmeshwar Ram Resident of Mohalla Devi Asthan, Gol Bagicha, Police Station Kotwali, District Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Anjum Shireen wife of Late Habibur Rahman resident of Mohalla Bazaza Road, Police Station Kotwali, District and Town Gaya.
| =============== | ========================= | ... ... Respondent/s ============== |
|---|---|---|
| Appearance : | ||
| For the Petitioner/s | : Mr.Md. Waliur Rahman Mr.S.P.Singh |
|
| For the Respondent/s =============== |
: Mr.Abdul Mannan Khan Mr. Avinava Kumar Mr.Hafiz Shahbaz ========================= |
============== |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date :03 -09-2024
I have already the learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court C.R. No.90 of 2014 dt.03-09-2024 2/9
and 10 ½ ft east to west. The plaintiff/respondent Anjum Shireen instituted Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2010 for eviction of her tenant, Sunil Kumar (the defendant/petitioner) with the averment that the premises was purchased by her husband Late Habibur Rahman Khan, who died on 13.10.2006 due to Hepatitis B, leaving behind his widow, the plaintiff/respondent and three sons, namely, Arif Habib Khan, Faiz Khan and Asif Habib Khan and a daughter Reshmi Habib Khan, who went to her matrimonial home after her marriage. Her family is a trader family of good reputation in the field of cloth business. The eldest son Arif Habib Khan was running a cloth shop after its being vacated by Salahuddin (one of the tenants). Salahuddin vacated the premises on 19.03.2010 and thereafter Arif Habib Khan, her eldest son, started ready made garment business in that premises. Her second son, Faiz Khan, after graduation, had no work to do and he was sitting idle. Faiz Khan was interested in carrying on cloth business in the suit premises, which is most suitable place. The plaintiff/respondent requested the defendant/petitioner to vacate the premises to which he took six months time, but he did not vacate the same. Ultimately, on 31.05.2010, the defendant/petitioner refused to vacate the shop. The plaintiff/respondent requires the suit premise reasonably
Patna High Court C.R. No.90 of 2014 dt.03-09-2024 3/9
and in good faith for her son to carry on ladies and kids ready made cloth business and the suit premise is suitable place for such enterprise/business and Faiz Khan requires to construct a showcase, racks, shelf, counter frame north to south and trial room on the south west corner of the suit premises for the purpose to check the fitness of the garments by the ladies customers.
Patna High Court C.R. No.90 of 2014 dt.03-09-2024
4/9
mentioned that Rs. 3,25,000/- was raised by Late Habibur Rahman Khan as advance rent. The defendant/petitioner paid Rs. 3,25,000/- to Late Habibur Rahman Khan. The defendant/petitioner was inducted into the premises as fixed term tenant for a period of 35 years. It has been denied that the family of the plaintiff/respondent was a trader family and they had knowledge of business. It has been mentioned in the written statement that after execution of Ekrarnama dated 25.01.1994, the defendant/petitioner was regularly paying rent till August, 2006 and the receipt was granted by Late Habibur Rahman Khan and after his death in October, 2006, the plaintiff/respondent made a pressure on him to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as an advance and Rs.4000/- as monthly rent, otherwise a suit for eviction shall be filed. Thereafter, the defendant/petitioner started transmitting the rent through the money order @ Rs.1800/- per month. It has been mentioned that Faiz Khan is not sitting idle and he is not going to start any business. This plea has only been taken with intention to vacate the suit premises on purely mala fide and unreasonable ground. It is pleaded in the additional written statement that Faiz Khan had gone to Saudi Arabia and he was running a tailoring shop to earn his livelihood. It has also been mentioned that a suitable
Patna High Court C.R. No.90 of 2014 dt.03-09-2024
5/9
place for opening a shop is available on the first floor of the premises, where Faiz Khan may run his cloth business. It has also been mentioned that the plaintiff/respondent had several shop rooms and all have been let out to the tenants. As many as seven shop rooms have been mentioned in the written statement belonging to the plaintiff/respondent with details of the tenants to whom those shops were let out.
Patna High Court C.R. No.90 of 2014 dt.03-09-2024 6/9
Birendra Singh, who proved Ext.B (rent receipt no. 108 dated 06.09.2006). D.W.5 is Santosh Kumar. D.W.6 is Baliram Singh, who proved Ext.C to C/20(money order receipts. D.W.7 is Umashankar Prasad, who proved Ext.C/21 and C/22. (money order receipts) and D.W.8 is Shankar Kumar.
Patna High Court C.R. No.90 of 2014 dt.03-09-2024 7/9
rather it is a memorandum of oral agreement entered into between the parties, and as per Section 49 of the Act of 1908 even despite not being a registered deed (Ext.A), is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes.
Patna High Court C.R. No.90 of 2014 dt.03-09-2024 8/9
that it was not a tenancy for a fixed term, rather it was a tenancy from month to month, as per the presumption laid down in Section 106 of the Act of 1982.
defendant/petitioner has mentioned that Faiz Khan was running a tailoring shop in Dubai, but during cross-examination of P.W.2, the plaintiff as well as P.W.3, the first son of the plaintiff, it was asked by the defense in suggestion that Faiz Khan was working in Delhi which is contrary to the pleading of the written statement.
Patna High Court C.R. No.90 of 2014 dt.03-09-2024 9/9
when he vacated the shop. He vacated the shop because of his inability to run the shop. It has also been mentioned that Salahuddin also admitted that he vacated the shop six months before filing of the present suit, as such, it appear that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/respondent did not let out her commercial premises. The witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent have stated categorically that Faiz Khan is sitting idle having no work. The learned court below, in my view, did not commit any illegality or impropriety in holding that the suit premises was needed by the plaintiff/respondent reasonably and in good faith for his son.
dismissed.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
HR/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | 12.01.2024 |
| Uploading Date | 09.2024 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an unregistered Ekrarnama stipulating a 35-year fixed tenancy could be relied upon to defeat the eviction suit.
Whether the plaintiff's requirement of the premises for her son's business was reasonable and in good faith.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Chand Mukhan and others Vs. Goverdhan Das Byas and othersRelied on¶11
AIR 1984 SC 143 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil Kumar
Anjum Shireen
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
