IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.83 of 2023 ======================================================

Mritunjay Kumar, aged about 49 years, Male, Son of Sri Ramji Prasad, Resident of Village-Mandi, P.O.-Mari, P.S. and District-Nalanda, at Present running Shop in the Name and Style of M/S Niwas Telecom, Saraswati Complex, Bhikhna Pahari Mor, P.O.-Bankipur, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna.

... ...Defendant- Petitioner/s Versus Shri Kumar Avinash @ Abinash Prasad, Son of Late Dr. Lalit Mohan Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Sheikhpura Bagicha, C/o Ramjaipal Singh Yadav near I.G.I.M.S., P.S.-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna.

... ... Plaintiff-Opposite Party ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nikesh Sinha, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

CAV ORDER

11 06-01-2026 This Civil Revision application has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBC Act’) against the Judgment and decree dated 29.03.2023, decree whereof sealed and signed on 13.04.2023, passed in Eviction Suit no. 12 of 2012, passed by Sri Kumar Ritesh, Learned Munsif-I, Patna Sadar, whereby and where under the learned trial Court decreed the suit without cost directing the petitioner to vacate the suit premises within 60 days from the date of judgment, failing which the respondent will be at liberty to evict the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises by the process of the Court at the cost of the defendant-petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents are the owner of the land of total area of 1947 sq. ft., purchased out of their joint family fund. The land has been registered through three separate registered sale deed nos. 8695, 8696 and 8697 respectively from Pramila Bala Sinha and others. The suit premises is one of the portions of the said property. After the purchase, the names of the purchasers were duly mutated in the relevant municipal and revenue records, and subsequently a commercial complex was constructed over the said land in the name and style of “Sarswati Complex.”

4. Further, the case of the respondent is that on

22.05.2001, one of the co-purchasers, namely Abhishek Kumar @ Abhishek Prasad, died intestate and unmarried, as a result of which his undivided share measuring approximately 660 sq. ft. devolved jointly upon the respondent and their mother, Smt. Neelam Prasad, in accordance with law. The respondent, thus, became a co-sharer and co-owner of the suit property along with his mother. After attaining majority, and with the consent and approval of his mother, the respondent instituted the present suit for eviction in his capacity as a co-sharer landlord.

5. During the period when he was a minor, his mother, on the request of the petitioner, agreed to induct him as a tenant in respect of two commercial shops situated in the Sarswati Complex, having a total area of about 218 sq. ft. (23′7″ × 9′3″). The petitioner is a monthly tenant in respect of the said two shops on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400/- for one shop and Rs. 900/- for the other, aggregating to Rs. 2,300/- per month. The tenancy was created on specific terms and conditions, inter alia, that the monthly rent would be paid in advance within the first week of each English calendar month, that the electricity charges consumed in the suit premises would be borne and paid by the petitioner, and that all other dues such as telephone bills, service tax and any other applicable taxes would be the sole responsibility of the petitioner.

6. It is further pleaded that it was an express condition of the tenancy that if the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent for two successiv