IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14185 of 2010 SARLA DEVI WIFE OF LATE BIJAY PANDEY RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NAYATOLA, BHIKHANPUR, R.B.S.S. ROAD, P.S. –ISHAKCHAK, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR .…DEFENDANT-PETITIONER VERSUS 1. MANJU DEVI WIFE OF TRIVIKRAM PRASAD , RESIDENT OF MOHALLA, R.B.S.S. ROAD, MUNDICHAK, P.S.-MUNDICHAK (KOTWALI), DISTRICT BHAGALPUR ….PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2. SANJAY PANDEY SON OF LATE BIJAY PANDEY 3. MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY SON OF LATE BIJAY PANDEY, NOS.2 & 3 RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NAYATOLA, BHIKHANPUR, R.B.S.S. ROAD, P.S.-ISHAKCHAK, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ….DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : M/s Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate. For the respondents : M/s Abinash Kumar and Shalini Raut, Advocates. ----------- 03/ 23.09.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to correct the name of respondent no.1 by impleading ‘Manju Devi wife of Trivikram Prasad’ in place of ‘Trivikram Prasad son of Late Hare Krishna Prasad’. The prayer is allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 29.08.2009 by which Subordinate Judge-III, Bhagalpur allowed the application of plaintiff under section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 filed in Eviction Suit No.06 of 2005 and directed the defendants-petitioner to pay arrears of rent from November 2002 till September 2005 (before the eviction suit was filed in October 2005) and thereafter to pay the arrears of rent from October 2005 till August 2009 at the rent of Rs.800.00 per month within fifteen days from - 2 - the said order and also to pay the current rent within time failing which the defence of defendant-petitioner against ejectment shall be struck off. 4. The aforesaid Eviction Suit No.06 of 2005 was filed by plaintiff for eviction of the defendants on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the defendants as well as personal necessity of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land and also arrears of rent. 5. From the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement admitting that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the rent of the suit premises was Rs.800.00 per month. Furthermore, no chit of paper was produced by the defendants to show that any rent had been paid to the plaintiff either during pendency of the suit or within three years prior to filing of the suit. In the said circumstances, the court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the time taken in filing of the civil revision earlier which was withdrawn and the instant writ petition was filed, it is directed that if the entire arrears of rent from November 2002 till September 2010 is deposited by the defendant-petitioner in Court by 31st of October 2010 and thereafter the petitioner goes on depositing monthly rent of October 2010 onwards by 15th of the next succeeding month, the defence of the defendant-petitioner shall not be struck off. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)