A tenant's purchase of an undivided share does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship, allowing eviction proceedings to continue.

CAV ORDER

18 06-02-2026

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision application has been filed against the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Sub- st st Judge 1 -cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1 , Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Eviction Suit No. 98 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for dismissal of the suit, as due to subsequent development, the suit became incompetent and not fit to proceed, has been rejected.

3. The fact of the case, in brief, is that plaintiffs (opposite parties) filed the eviction suit asserting that the defendant (petitioner) was inducted as a monthly tenant in nd respect of a shop premises situated on the 2 floor of Khetan Super Market, Patna, at a monthly rent of Rs.11,000/-, under the previous landladies, namely Smt. Savita Agrawal, Smt. Lalita Devi and Smt. Munni Devi, who were the absolute owners in possession of the suit premises. According to the plaint, the defendant regularly paid rent up to January 2010 but thereafter defaulted from February 2010 onwards, resulting in accumulation of arrears. During the subsistence of the tenancy and the period of default, the previous landladies transferred the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 24.08.2011, along with the right to realise and recover the arrears of rent. It is further alleged that the defendant was duly informed of the said transfer and was called upon to pay the arrears and continue payment of rent to the plaintiffs, but he failed and refused to do so. The plaintiffs also claimed bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises, stating that they were carrying on their textile business from rented accommodation in the same building under financial pressure and required the suit premises for their own use and occupation, there being no other suitable or alternative accommodation available. On these assertions, the suit was instituted seeking eviction of the defendant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal necessity, along with recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.2,09,000/- for the period from February 2010 to August 2011.

4. The petitioner/defendant appeared before the learned Trial Court and filed written statement contesting the suit in its entirety, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, limitation, valuation and payment of court fee, and alleging suppression and misstatement of material facts by the plaintiffs. It was specifically denied that the plaintiffs were the landlords of the suit premises or that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent. It was stated that rent had been regularly paid to the erstwhile landladies, who had accepted the same and issued receipts up to March 2011, and that upon their refusal to receive rent thereafter, the defendant continued to tender rent by money order, both to the previous landowners and subsequently to the plaintiffs, which was also refused. The defendant further disputed the genuineness and validity of the registered sale deed dated 24.08.2011, alleging it to be a sham and collusive document executed without consideration, and contended that the plaintiffs had no right to claim arrears of rent for any period prior to the alleged pur