IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14030 of 2010 1. DILIP KHATRI @ DILIP KR.KHATRI S/O SRI RAM BHAJAN LAL KHATRI R/O MOH SADAR GALI SONAR PATTI, BAGH KALU KHAN, P.S.KHAJEKALLAN, P.O.JHAUGANJ, DISTT-PATNA, A/P RESIDENT OF KASERA TOLI, P.S.KHAJEKALLAN, DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. AMAR NATH S/O LATE KESHAR PRASAD R/O MOH KASERA TOLI, P.O.JHAUGANJ, P.S.KHAJEKALLAN, DISTT-PATNA ----------- 3. 03.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent. The petitioner, tenant is aggrieved by the order dated 2.6.2010 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2009 by Sub-Judge-Ist, Patna City. On an application dated 1.7.2009 of the respondent landlord preferred under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) the petitioner has been directed to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from July 2006 to May, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the specific case of the petitioner that the rent till July, 2009 had been paid cash by hand and after August, 2009, he had remitted the same by money order. It was not his case that prior to August, 2009, he had remitted any rent by money order. Nonetheless the trial Court has erred in considering that the petitioner from the money order receipt produced by him had failed to satisfy that rent had been paid by money order from 2 July, 2006 to July, 2009. The submission therefore is that there has been error in application of mind by taking into consideration irrelevant factors vitiating the decision. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if it is the case of the petitioner that he had remitted rent prior to August, 2009 in cash, the impugned order records that he had failed to substantiate the same by cogent evidence. Relying upon a judgment in 1990 PLJR 97 (Chairman & Anr. Vs. Mahadeo Prasad & Ors.) at Paragraph-14 he submits that every jurisdictional error of the subordinate Court may not invite interference by this Court if substantial justice have been done between the parties. There can be no quarrel with the general proposition advanced on behalf of the respondents. But when the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to decide a particular issue has taken into consideration materials irrelevant and that has vitiated the decision, this Court finds it difficult at this stage to segregate the impugned order into two parts from July, 2006 to July, 2009 and thereafter with regard to the mode of payment of rent. The impugned order has treated the entire period in one manner, dealing with one evidence, the absence of sufficient evidence by proof of money order 3 to arrive at the conclusion. The impugned order dated 2.6.2010 in its present form is therefore not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded. Let fresh appropriate order be passed on basis of materials already on record after hearing counsel for the parties within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Any deposit made on behalf of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order under protest, shall naturally abide by the fresh order that may be passed and it is expected that till such time no orders for permitting withdrawal of any sum shall be passed in so far as the period till July, 2009 is concerned. There shall be no bar for the period thereafter to withdrawal pending fresh orders. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)