IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.68 of 2022 ======================================================

Baidyanath Sharma son of Late Krishna Sharma, Resident of Village-

Hasanpur Surat Barai Tola, P.S.-Patori, District-Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus Smt. Rama Devi W/o Gopal Prasad Khator, Resident of Village-Hasanpur Surat Barai Tola, P.S.-Patori, District-Samastipur.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shankar Prasad Roy, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA CAV ORDER

14 20-01-2026 This Civil Revision application no. 68 of 2022 has been filed under Section 14(8) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2022 passed by the Munsif, Samastipur in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2011 whereby and where under the learned trial Court has decreed the suit directing the defendant/petitioner to vacate the premises within 90 days from the date of the order otherwise the plaintiff/respondent would be at liberty to get the delivery of possession through the process of the court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has purchased a piece of land pertaining to Khata no. 185, Plot no. 692 measuring an area 16 dhur through a registered Sale Deed dated 07.03.2008 from her father-in-law namely late Sitaram prasad Khator and constructed structure and has given on rent to the defendant on monthly rent. Further, the defendant has taken premises on rent on monthly rent of Rs.500/- for doing a business of wooden furniture and with the statement that the defendant will pay monthly rent in the first week of every month and will not sublet the premises without consent of the land owner and also will not change structure.

4. It was further case of the plaintiff that a deed of kirayanama was prepare on stamp paper for 11 months dated 26.09.2008 and again it was re-validated for further 11 months till 30.09.2010. Further, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement on 25.04.2011 stating therein that he is the tenant in the suit premises but there is a dispute between the three sons of Sita Ram Khatore and it is the plaintiff who requested the defendant to start a shop in the suit land and the same was constructed by defendant in July, 2008 and when dispute arose it was agreed between the co-sharer of plaintiff that rent will be paid to person who win the case. 5. It was also stated and asserted by the defendant that "Kirayanama" dated 26.09.2008 and subsequent lease deed for the period 01.11.2009 to 21.01.2010 was executed by the defendant due to fear of eviction and is doing business as a tenant. The lease deed dated 21.01.2010 was for a period of five (5) years and plaintiff has no right to evacuate the suit premises during this period and that defendant has spent Rs. One lakh seventy thousand towards construction of suit shop, which money needs to be adjusted and lastly it was prayed that suit may be dismissed with cost.

6. The trail Court after examining the exhibit-3 held that suit land belonged to Sita Ram Khatore who sold it to plaintiff and unless the sale deed is set-aside by competent Court it will be a valid document and therefore, plaintiff/respondent is the landlord of suit shop and since no complaint was made earlier before any officer or trial Court, therefore signature of defendant on lease deed will be presumed to be valid and legal and it was held that there is relationship of landlords and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and issued no. "Gha" was also decided in favour of plaintiff; it was held that son of plaintiff i.e., Bikash Kumar wants