1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. Rev. No. 07 of 2025 ------ Ishtiaque Ahmad, S/o Late Md. Ismail Khan, R/o of 7, Purulia Road, Near Kantatoli Chowk, P.O. Kantatoli, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi. ... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Abada Khatoon, W/o Late Syed Niyaz Ahmad 2. Rafi Ahmad 3. Asif Ahmad 4. Shamshi Ahmad Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are sons of Late Syed Niyaz Ahmad. 5. Shabha Praveen 6. Shaheen Praneen Respondent nos. 5 and 6 are daughters of Late Syed Niyaz Ahmad. 7. Shabana Ishrat, W/o Dr. Abid Karim and daughter of Syed Mumtaz Ali 8. Farooque Nayyer, S/o Late Syed Mumtaz Ali All residents of 7 Purulia Road, Near Kantatoli Chowk, P.O. Kantatoli, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi. … …. Opp. Party(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Kr. Mahato, Advocate Mr. Rohitashya Roy @ Rohit Roy, Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocates For the Opp. Party(s) : ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 24.01.2025. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Civil Review has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 C.P.C. for reviewing of the judgment dated 13.05.2024 passed in S.A. No. 186 of 2018 by this Court. 2. The review- petitioner is the defendant against whom the eviction suit was decreed under Section 11(1) (c) and (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act,1982 on the ground of default in payment of rent and also for personal necessity. 3. Decree was affirmed in the first appeal and the Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court. 4. The review petition has been preferred principally on the ground that the suit property was a portion of Khas Mahal plot which had been recommended to be leased in favour of the petitioner regarding which the evidence as Exhibits- A, B, B/1, D, E etc., were adduced into evidence. 5. Furthermore, at the time of hearing of the second appeal, it could not be pointed out that the plaintiff(s) who are the lessees with respect to khas mahal holding, for which, they had brought a suit for eviction and the portion of the 2 land. This khas mahal lease hold land has been recommended to be leased in favour of the appellant-defendant. 6. Law is settled that while exercising review jurisdiction, a Court can only consider errors apparent on the face of record and cannot enter into merit of the claim. 7. Further, in eviction suit under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, the question of title is beyond consideration as the basis on claim of title is statutorily barred under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. 8. Para 11 of the judgment is relevant in this regard which is extracted as below: - “It is not in dispute that the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit premises. It is also not disputed that he was the tenant of Mumtaz Ali. After the compromise decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 54 of 1994, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmad was allotted the suit premise in his share and he stepped into the shoes of the Mumtaz Ali who has been admitted. In any case, since it was the joint family property, co-sharer had all right to initiate the eviction proceeding and after the compromise decree, he became landlord of the defendant. Defendant in the circumstance cannot deny landlord-tenant relationship.” 9. Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in this Civil Review. Accordingly, the instant civil review stands dismissed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/-