IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2198 of 2001 SUSHILA DEVI, Wife of Sri Braj Kishore Prasad Singh alias Heeraji, resident of Janki Niwas Kutcherry Road, P.S. Begusarai Town, District- Begusarai. -------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Begusarai 3. Ramchandra Sahi, Son of Late Sadhu Sharan Pd. Sahi, resident of Mohalla- Bishnupur, P.S.-Begusarai Town, Distt.- Begusarai claiming himself to be the President of one A.P.S. Trust, Begusarai 4. The Bihar State Board and Religious Trust through its Chairman Kidyapuri Marg, Bihar, Patna-I. ----------- 12. 24.11.2010 This writ application has been filed on the short point, challenging the jurisdiction of the Collector, Begusarai to execute an order passed by the House Controller under the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. Apparently, with respect to this land there is a title suit pending, in which several parties are claiming title to the land and property in question. Ayodhya Prasad Singh Trust (hereinafter referred to as the “Trust”) is said to be the former owner of the said property. The State has stepped, into the suit by virtue of the fact that the State claims that land belongs to Ayurvedic College. Apart, from the disputed question of title the fact remains that the House Controller has passed an order directing the tenants of the petitioner to deposit the rent of the property in question in the treasury. 2 The petitioner Sushila Devi has preferred writ application challenging the order of the House Controller, Begusarai by filing C.W.J.C. No. 569 of 1986 which was dismissed on 4.4.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 19 of 1986 which was also rejected on 22.5.1990. The tenant had been depositing the rent in the treasury, but suddenly they have refrained from depositing the rent, which led to filing of this miscellaneous case. The stand of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust, Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Trust”) is that the officer may be deputed for collection of the rent from the tenants of petitioner for them and the same may be deposited by opening the bank account in the name of the Trust. The power of the Collector to pass an order in miscellaneous case filed by respondent no. 3, is under challenge on the ground that Section 23 of the Act provides that the order of the House Controller would be executed by the Court, if such an order and decree was passed by such Court. The term Court is defined under Section 2 (d) of the Act which reads as follows:- “2 (d). “Court” means the Court having jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), to entertain a suit by a landlord against a tenant for recovery of possession of building in respect of which a suit or application is filed under this Act.” Thus the house controller much less the Collector has the jurisdiction to execute an order passed 3 by the house controller. By the order impugned the Collector, Begusarai gave a direction to the house controller, to issue notice to the tenant, to deposit the arrears and current rent in the Treasury at Begusarai. There are several provisions under the Act which would give the right to the landlord to recover the rent from the tenants. The respondents thus can move either move for execution of a decree or file a case to eject the tenants on the ground for non payment of rent and also file an application in the suit itself for an interim direction to the tenants (concerned parties) to deposit the rent of the property in question in the treasury of Begusarai. I must say the order of the Collector, Begusarai per say is well meaning, but unfortunately it would be against the provisions of the Act to allow the order to take shape. For the aforesaid proposition there are several decisions with respect to Section 23 of the Act which envisage that the only remedy to the petitioner is to file an execution case in the Court below. In the result, the order dated 2.1.2001 is quashed and this application is allowed. Anand Kr. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)