Case Background
The dispute concerns a residential property at Gorakhnath Lane, Boring Road, within Buddha Colony, Patna. The plaintiff, who later became the petitioner before the Patna High Court, claimed to be the rightful owner and possessor of this property.
According to her case, the property originally belonged to one Indira Devi, wife of late Dinanath Prasad. Indira Devi, the plaintiff’s mother-in-law, had purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated 14.01.1971 and built a three-storied residential house from her own funds. Her name was entered in the municipal records, and she lived separately from her sons.
The plaintiff stated that she had been looking after her mother-in-law. For these services, the mother-in-law executed a registered gift deed dated 04.05.2012, gifting the self-acquired property to the plaintiff. Based on this deed, the plaintiff said she came into possession of the entire property and the municipal records were changed accordingly.
The defendant, a close family member working in the Government of Jharkhand, had requested his mother (Indira Devi) for accommodation for his family in a portion of the house for the education of his children. He was allowed to stay in a part of the suit premises.
After the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, she requested the defendant to vacate the premises on the ground of her personal necessity. According to her, the defendant initially promised to vacate within a few months but later refused both to vacate and to pay the rent that had allegedly been agreed upon between them.
Faced with this refusal, the plaintiff filed Title Eviction Suit No.78 of 2012 before the civil court. In that suit, she sought eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, arrears of rent for four months amounting to Rs. 28,000/- (excluding electric bill) with interest pendente lite, and a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from transferring or changing the physical features of the premises.
The defendant entered appearance, filed a written statement, and took a strong stand against the plaintiff’s claim. He denied the existence of any landlord–tenant relationship between them. He also stated that he had already filed Title Partition Suit No.315 of 2012 before the court of the Sub-Judge-1, Patna, against his brothers and sisters, claiming unity of title and unity of possession in the same property.
The defendant further alleged that the gift deed dated 04.05.2012 in favour of the plaintiff was fabricated. Thus, he directly challenged the plaintiff’s title itself, besides denying tenancy.
In this background, after receiving the written statement, the plaintiff filed an amendment application dated 30.06.2016 in the eviction suit. She sought to amend the plaint to introduce an alternative relief based on her title. She wanted that, if the court ultimately found that there was no landlord–tenant relationship, then she should still get a decree of eviction on the strength of her ownership.
After hearing both sides, the learned Sub-Judge-8, Patna, by order dated 15.12.2016, rejected the amendment application. The trial court held that the proposed amendment was an attempt to add a relief based purely on title, and allowing it would change the nature of the eviction suit in a manner not permissible under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (“BBC Act”).
Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff approached the Patna High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.666 of 2017.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Before the Patna High Court, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court had wrongly refused the amendment. He pointed out that the original suit, Title Eviction Suit No.78/2012, was for eviction, recovery of rent and injunction. After the defendant denied the landlord–tenant relationship and challenged her title, it became necessary, according to the petitioner, to seek eviction on the basis of ownership as an alternative or equitable relief.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the property by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 04.05.2012 from her mother-in-law, who had earlier acquired the land by sale deed dated 14.01.1971 and constructed the building. The defendant’s own case in the partition suit showed, in her view, that he was also asserting rights in the same property, thereby putting title in issue.
On this basis, counsel argued that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the plaint so that, if the court ultimately did not accept the landlord–tenant relationship, she could still claim eviction on the basis of her title. It was further argued that such an amendment would not change the nature of the suit. According to him, eviction could be sought both on the ground of tenancy and, in the alternative, on the ground of ownership, relying on Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with alternative and equitable reliefs.
The petitioner’s senior counsel also contended that in eviction matters the relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non. However, if the court finds that such a relationship does not exist but the plaintiff has title, the court, under Order VII Rule 7 CPC, could still grant a decree for eviction on the basis of that title, subject to payment of proper court fee. He submitted that the trial court failed to exercise this power and wrongly held that the amendment would change the nature of the suit.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha of the Patna High Court carefully considered these submissions. He noted that the eviction suit had been filed under a special statute, namely the BBC Act. The central question was whether, in such a suit, the plaintiff could be allowed to amend the plaint to seek a declaration of title and eviction purely on that basis.
The Court first referred to settled law from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It observed that the question of title of the parties is generally not relevant when a suit is filed for eviction under a special enactment like the BBC Act. A court such as a rent controller, or a civil court exercising limited jurisdiction under a rent control statute, can pass an eviction decree only on the grounds specified in that statute.
The Patna High Court pointed out that the scope of such eviction suits is very limited. Even if a plaintiff is able to prove title, the suit must still fail if the plaintiff cannot establish the contract of tenancy as required by the special Act. For this proposition, the Court cited three Supreme Court decisions:
The Court explained that these judgments make it clear that, in eviction suits governed by rent control laws, title disputes are outside the core jurisdiction of the court. At best, the question of title can be looked into only incidentally, and only to the limited extent of deciding whether a landlord–tenant relationship exists.
The Court then referred to another Supreme Court decision: Tribhuwanshankar v. Amrutlal, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788. In that case, the Supreme Court distinguished between eviction suits brought under the Transfer of Property Act before a regular civil court and those brought under special rent control statutes. While alternative reliefs may sometimes be permissible in cases under the Transfer of Property Act, the position is different when jurisdiction is limited by a special rent law.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha noted that Tribhuwanshankar also clarified that a court dealing with a rent matter can examine title only to see whether the tenant’s denial of the landlord’s title is bona fide. It is not a forum for full-scale adjudication of ownership claims.
Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Patna High Court held that the trial court, acting under the BBC Act, could not inquire into the plaintiff’s title with a view to granting an eviction decree purely on the basis of ownership. Doing so would go beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the BBC Act, which allows eviction only on specified statutory grounds linked to tenancy.
Because the BBC Act does not permit granting such alternative or equitable relief based solely on title, the Court concluded that Order VII Rule 7 CPC could not be invoked in this context. That provision cannot expand the jurisdiction of a court beyond what the special statute allows.
The High Court therefore agreed with the trial court that allowing the amendment would effectively convert a limited eviction suit under the BBC Act into a broader title suit. This would fundamentally change the nature of the case, which is not permissible.
In paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Court clearly stated that the learned court below, exercising powers under the BBC Act, cannot go into the title of the plaintiff because no alternative relief of that nature is permissible, and no equitable relief can be granted. Consequently, the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 CPC were held to be inapplicable to this eviction suit.
On this reasoning, the Patna High Court upheld the trial court’s order dated 15.12.2016 rejecting the amendment application. It held that the trial court had rightly refused the plaintiff’s request to amend the plaint to seek declaration of title and eviction based on ownership.
Finally, the Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition, finding no merit in the challenge. However, it clarified that the question of right, title and interest of the parties remains open. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate legal steps separately to assert any of her rights in accordance with law, presumably in a proper title or partition proceeding, and not through amendment of the BBC Act eviction suit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for landlords and family members involved in property disputes in Bihar, especially under the BBC Act. It clearly explains that an eviction case under the rent control law cannot be converted midway into a full title dispute by amending the plaint.
If a landlord files an eviction suit under the BBC Act, the case must primarily focus on the landlord–tenant relationship and the specific grounds of eviction mentioned in the Act, such as default in rent or personal necessity. If the tenant denies the landlord’s title or claims co-ownership, the eviction court can look at title only in a limited way, just to see whether the denial is genuine or not. It cannot grant an eviction decree purely on the basis of deciding ownership.
For litigants, this means two things. First, they must choose the correct type of case at the beginning. If the main dispute is about who owns the property, a separate title or partition suit may be necessary. Second, even if the other side alleges that the gift deed or sale deed is false, the eviction court under the BBC Act is not the correct forum to fully resolve that title dispute.
The judgment also reassures parties that their title rights are not closed just because an eviction amendment is refused. The High Court has specifically stated that the petitioner is free to take recourse to law to assert her rights regarding ownership in appropriate proceedings.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a plaintiff in an eviction suit under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 amend the plaint to seek eviction based purely on title as an alternative relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that in an eviction suit under the BBC Act, the court has limited jurisdiction and cannot inquire into or decide title for granting eviction solely on that basis. Such an amendment would change the nature of the suit and is not permissible. Order VII Rule 7 CPC does not apply to permit an equitable or alternative relief that lies outside the scope of the BBC Act. -
Issue: Can the eviction court under the BBC Act adjudicate on ownership disputes between parties?
Answer: Only incidentally and in a very limited way, to determine whether a landlord–tenant relationship exists or whether the tenant’s denial of title is bona fide. It cannot grant a decree of eviction purely on ownership grounds or decide comprehensive title disputes.
Cases Cited by the Court
- LIC v. India Automobiles & Co., (1990) 4 SCC 286
- Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, (1995) 6 SCC 580
- Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, (2002) 1 SCC 90
- Tribhuwanshankar v. Amrutlal, (2014) 2 SCC 788
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.666 of 2017
Case Title: Poonam Kumar @ Poonam Singh v. Umesh Singh
Citation: 2024(1) PLJR 763
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Date of Judgment: 11-12-2023
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Dronacharya, Senior Advocate
- For the Respondent: Not mentioned in the judgment text
Nature of the Case: Civil miscellaneous petition challenging rejection of amendment application in Title Eviction Suit No.78 of 2012 under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
Link to the Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
