IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1496 of 2009 Md. Sabid son of late Md. Mustafa Resident of village Mahua, P.O. & P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali, ……Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. Ashok Chaudhary 2. Manoj Chaudhary Both sons of Ram Lakhan Chaudhary 3. Sanjay Chaudhary 4. Sanjiv Chaudhary 5. Avnish Chaudhary All sons of late Baidyanath Chaudhary 6. Rajkumari Devi widow of late Baidyanath Chaudhary All resident of Mahua Singhrai, P.O. & P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali…………….……Plaintiffs-Opposite parties 7. Md. Abid son of late Md. Mustafa Resident of village Mahua, P.O. & P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali ……..Defendant-Opposite party For the petitioner : M/s Naresh Chandra Verma and Arun Kr. Lal, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. . ----------- 06/ 11.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 31.03.2009 by which learned Additional Munsif-V, Vaishali rejected his application dated 20.09.2004 for clarification of order dated 10.05.2004 passed in Eviction Suit No.05 of 1994. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties 1st set for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises, namely a shop on the ground of their bona fide personal requirement and default in payment of rent by the defendants. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested. 2 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit the plaintiffs filed an application under section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟ for the sake of brevity) which was allowed on 27.02.1996 by the trial court directing the defendants to pay the arrears of rent as well as the current rent within the time granted in the concerned provision of law. 5. Subsequently on 10.05.2004 the plaintiffs complained before the trial court that the defendants were not complying the said order of the court dated 27.02.1996. The defendants contested the said application claiming that they had already deposited the rent through Chalan in the court, whereafter the learned court below considered the matter and passed order dated 10.05.2004 directing the defendants to pay the rent to the plaintiffs in court by the next date i.e. 10.06.2004. 6. It transpires that the defendants did not comply the said order and much thereafter on 20.09.2004 filed an application for clarification of order dated 10.05.2004, as no order had been passed for permitting the defendants to withdraw the amount already deposited through Chalan so that the payments could be made to the plaintiffs in terms of order dated 10.05.2004. The plaintiffs contested the said application by filing their rejoinder. Finally the learned court below rejected the said application of the defendants vide its order dated 31.03.2009, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 3 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is quite apparent that order dated 27.02.1996 was passed by the learned court below under the provision of section 15 of the Act in which order it was written “Chalan Dwara,” but it was penned through meaning thereby the arrears of rent as well as current rent were to be paid directly to the plaintiffs. However, it was the claim of the defendants that defendants were unaware of the said cutting and hence they deposited the rent through Chalan. Till that stage, the matter was quite clear but subsequently after the matter was clarified on 10.05.2004 by the learned court below it was the duty of the defendants to pay the arrears of rent as well as current rent to the plaintiffs directly in court, but the defendants did not comply even the said order on a frivolous pretext that they were unable to withdraw the amount deposited through Chalan as no order for withdrawal was passed by the learned court below and a frivolous application dated 20.09.2004 was filed by the defendants for clarification of order dated 10.05.2004. 8. This excuse is a lame excuse which appears to be absolutely frivolous as if the defendants had any difficulty in withdrawing the amount deposited through Chalan they could have immediately after order dated 10.05.2004 filed an application before the court but the defendants after four months filed an application dated 20.09.2004 for clarification of order dated 10.05.2004. The attitude of the defendants is also clear from the 4 fact that the amount which was deposited through Chalan and had to be recovered were all arrears of rent and the defendants were duty bound to pay the current rent also as per the specific order dated 27.02.1996 passed under section 15 of the Act, but since 2004 the said rent has not been paid to the plaintiffs nor even deposited which is thus clear violation of the aforesaid specific order of the court and the defendants had to face the consequence thereof. 9. It further transpires that the attitude of the defendants is merely to harass the plaintiffs and deprive them from their legally entitled amounts and also to delay the disposal of the eviction suit, which is pending since 1994. 10. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the suit without giving any adjournment to any of the parties so that the suit is decided expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )