6 min readNew DelhiMar 18, 2026 08:00 AM ISTOn careful analysis of the impugned judgment, the Patna High Court concluded that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the premises. (Image generated using AI)Patna High Court news: A tenancy that began in December 1938 at a monthly rent of just Rs 7 has finally come to a legal end, with the Patna High Court upholding the eviction of occupants after finding them to be defaulters who failed to establish ownership over the disputed property.Justice Khatim Reza was hearing a second appeal filed by the occupants, effectively affirming concurrent findings of two trial courts that had ordered their eviction from the premises in Bihar’s Saran district. Justice Khatim Reza issued the order on March 13.“The plaintiffs have been able to prove that the defendants are defaulter-in-payment of rent of the suit premises and the plaintiffs have successfully proved their bona fide requirement for the suit premises and it is also admitted fact that the defendants have not paid the rent for the defaulted period,” the Patna High Court said on March 13.High court: No proof of ownership, clear defaultOn a careful analysis of the impugned judgment, this court comes to a clear finding that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the premises in the suit.The defendants failed to prove their claim that they constructed house over the suit land.From perusal of the documentary evidence, it appears that the house was existence since before Hall Survey (Revisional Survey of Records of Rights).The relationship of landlord and tenant is established beyond doubt.The defendants have miserably failed to establish their case while the plaintiffs have proved their case in accordance with law.Also Read | Patna High Court flags ‘grossly insufficient’ mental health care in Bihar, orders immediate halt to mining near BIMHASThe learned trial court clearly held that the defendants are tenant at the rate of Rs 7 per month and there is no assertion or evidence of the defendants that he paid the rent of the suit premises.Therefore, he is defaulter under Section 11 of the BBC Act.Both the courts have concurrently held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants.Hence, the learned courts are quite justified in arriving at the findings with regard to the default and arrears of rent.No substantial question of lawIn its final analysis, the Patna high court found no ‘substantial question of law’ warranting interference in the concurrent findings of the trial courts.Tenancy rooted in pre-independence IndiaThe case traces its origins to December 1938, when the ancestors of the present plaintiffs let out the suit premises, located on plot number 1091 in Saran, at a rent of Rs 7 per month to the defendants’ predecessors.According to court records, rent payments were made until 1967.Also Read | Patna High Court grants bail in record 463 cases in a day — most related to liquorLater, the tenants allegedly defaulted and continued in occupation without payment, despite repeated demands.The plaintiffs eventually filed an eviction suit in 2002, citing two primary grounds- persistent default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement of the property.Decades of litigation, revenue disputesThe dispute was compounded by parallel proceedings over land records dating back to the 1970s.The defendants claimed that their ancestors had orally purchased the land in 1938 for Rs 99 and constructed a house on it.Also Read | ‘Inherently improbable’: Patna High Court quashes cruelty case against in-laws who never lived with brideHowever, revenue authorities and appellate proceedings including a Jamabandi appeal decided on February 14, 2002 ultimately went in favour of the plaintiffs, reinforcing their claim to ownership.Despite these findings, the defendants continued to contest both title and tenancy in civil proceedings.Trial court, first appeal findingsThe trial court, after examining oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the property.The defendants were tenants at a monthly rent of Rs 7.No rent had been paid from January 1968 to 2002.The defendants failed to produce any evidence of payment.Also Read | Patna High Court slams magistrate for sending woman to CWC after allowing her return to in-laws: ‘It was a final order’The court concluded that the occupants were “defaulters” under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, and ordered eviction along with limited arrears of rent (from May 1999 onwards, as earlier dues were time-barred).This ruling was upheld in January 2016 by the additional district judge, Saran, prompting the second appeal before the high court.Legal significanceThe ruling underscores key principles governing tenancy disputes including long possession does not confer ownership without legal proof.Oral claims of sale must be substantiated through credible evidence.Also Read | Invoking Mahabharata, Patna High court upholds death sentence of two men in triple murder over land disputePersistent non-payment of rent constitutes a valid ground for eviction.Concurrent factual findings by lower courts are rarely disturbed in second appeals.End of an 88-year tenancyWith the dismissal of the second appeal by the Patna High Court, the plaintiffs are now legally entitled to recover possession of the property bringing to a close an 88-year-old tenancy that began under colonial-era rent terms and evolved into a protracted legal battle spanning decades.The case stands as a stark reminder of how unresolved property disputes can traverse generations before reaching finality in court.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdAdvertisementLoading Recommendations...