IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.804 of 2008 Md. Ejaz Ahmad son of Late Md. Ashfaque, Resident of Mohalla Bakarganj, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. …..Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Syed Mohammad Iqbal Hussain, son of Late Syed Mohammad Hefazat Hussain, resident of Mohalla Bakarganj, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. ……Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set. 2. Md. Ibrahim and sons, a registered Partnership Firm through its partner Md. Mushtaque, at Ashok Raj Path, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. 3. Md. Mushtaque 4. Md. Shahid, both sons of Late Md Ishaque. And partner of the firm Md. Ibrahim and sons and all resident of Mohalla Bakarganj, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, District Patna. ……Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties 2nd set. For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate. For opposite party no.1 : M/s J.S. Arora and Ajay Kumar @ Srivastava, Advocates. ----------- 02/ 06.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 27.03.2008 by which the learned Munsif-III, Patna, allowed the application of the plaintiff- opposite party no.1 under the provisions of Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 in Eviction Suit No.17 of 2004. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for eviction of the defendants on the ground of his bonafide personal requirement. In the said suit the defendants appeared and contested whereafter issues were framed. 2 4. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed an application under section 15 of the Act and the learned court below after considering the matter in detail found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and last paid rent was Rs.1,550.00 per month, which was due from December, 2005 and accordingly, allowed the said application vide order dated 27.03.2008 and directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit all the arrears of rent at the said rate within fifteen days from the date of said order and also to go on depositing future rent at the same rate by fifteenth of the following month. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order but from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record, it is quite apparent that the findings of the learned court below were quite justified, legal and proper and defendants were duty bound to comply the said orders in which the mater and materials were fully considered and only thereafter prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as the last paid rent and its arrears were found. No valid ground is made out against order dated 27.03.2008, which is under challenge in this civil revision. 6. In the said circumstances this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 7. However, since the said order has been challenged in this civil revision, the defendant-petitioner could not deposit the 3 amount as per the impugned order and his defence against ejectment has been struck off. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the pendency of this civil revision, it is directed that if the defendant-petitioner deposits the entire arrears of rent at the aforesaid rate from the month of December, 2005 till the month of September, 2009 by the 31st of October, 2009 and also go on depositing the monthly rent at the same rate for the month of October, 2009 onwards by 15th of the next succeeding month, the order of striking off defence of the defendant-petitioner shall be automatically nullified. It may be noted that in case of non-compliance of this order strictly the order of striking off the defence of the defendant-petitioner shall automatically come in force. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )