IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2185 of 2006 Firoz Ahmad Khan @ Firoz Khan, son of late Mazbur Rahman, resident of mohalla Brahampura Anandpuri, Bhagwanpur, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur, presently proprietor of Khan Nurshing Home, Dr. Parwez Akhtar Complex, Mahesh Babu Chowk, Juran Chapra, P.S. Brahmpura, District Muzaffarpur.……..Defendant-Petitioner. Versus Dr. Parvez Akhtar, son of Noorul Hoda, resident of mohalla Juran Chapra, Mahesh Babu Chowk, P.S. Brahmpura, District Muzaffarpur…….…….Plaintiff-Opposite party. For the petitioner : M/s F.A. Khan and Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocates. For the opposite party : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate. ----------- 08/ 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 17.10.2006 by which learned Subordinate Judge-III, Muzaffarpur directed the defence of the petitioner to be struck off due to non-compliance of order of the learned trial court dated 20.09.2006 passed under the provision of section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 in Eviction Suit No.09 of 2005. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party for eviction of the sole defendant-petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant and for realisation of arrears. The said suit was contested by the defendant, who appeared and filed his written statement. 4. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under section 15 of the Act for direction to the defendant to pay the arrears of rent from July, 2004 and also to 2 pay the current rent at the rate of Rs.2,600.00 per month. The said application was allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 20.09.2006. The said order of the learned trial court was challenged by the defendant-petitioner in C.R. No.1939 of 2006 which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 09.01.2007. 5. It transpires that in that view of the matter and also due to non-compliance of order dated 20.09.2006 the learned court below passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2006 striking off the defence of the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order, the instant civil revision has been filed. However, during the pendency of this civil revision, this court vide order dated 09.01.2007 gave some relief to the petitioner directing him to deposit the entire arrears of rent within five weeks. 6. Now, although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below and submits that he has deposited the entire arrears of rent which was due on 09.01.2007 and is also paying current rent, but it is quite apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that order under section 15 of the Act was passed on 20.09.2006 but the said order was never complied and till December, 2006 the arrears of rent swelled to Rs.78,000.00 but when the aforesaid order dated 09.01.2007 was passed by this court, the petitioner paid a meagre amount of Rs.35,000.00 by 12.02.2007 and the remaining amount was not paid for about eight months. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that even 3 thereafter the petitioner has failed to deposit the current rent each month regularly. Thus, the repeated disobedience of orders of the learned court below and also of this court by the petitioner clearly shows that he deserves no sympathy at all. 7. 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )