IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2214 of 2006 JAI PRAKASH RAM PATWA, SON OF KHIRODHAR PATWA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. KADIRGANJ, P.S. & DISTRICT- NAWADAH…………….PLAINTIFF………………….PETITIONER. Versus NAGENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE FAUDI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NEPURA, P.O. & P.S. SILAO, DISTRICT-NALANDA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE AND P.O. KADIRGANJ, P.S. & DISTRICT-NAWADAH……………DEFENDANT….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Suman Kumar, Advocate. For Opp. Party : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate. ---------- 5. 14.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Opposite Party. This Civil Revision is directed against that part of the order dated 30.10.2006, passed by the Munsif, Nawadah, in Title Suit (Eviction) No.134 of 2004, whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioner filed under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for directing the defendant to deposit rent and arrears of rent has been rejected by the concerned court. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid Title Eviction Suit on the ground of bonafide personal necessity as well as due to default by the defendant in payment of rent with regard to the suit premises. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 15 of the Act for a direction to the defendant to deposit the current as well as arrears of rent. - 2 - The defendant-opposite party had contested this issue and disputed the landlord and tenant relationship in between them. It is submitted on behalf of opposite party that the suit premises had been purchased by him by registered sale deeds dated 22.11.1969 and 23.7.1984 from the mother of plaintiff. However, in place of plot no.9390, the plot number had wrongly been entered therein as 9364. It has further been stated that the Title Suit in this regard has been filed by the defendant bearing Title Suit No.01/2004 for declaration of title over the aforesaid plot. The trial court after hearing the rival submissions of the parties had come to the conclusion that there was nothing on the record to show the existence of landlord and tenant relationship in between them to entitle the plaintiff-petitioner to get the benefit of Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner could not demonstrate before the court that he was not getting rent from the defendant and also as to what was the last paid rent. Thus, court below had come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to pass an order in this regard in favour of the plaintiff. Even before this Court also, the petitioner could not demonstrate even prima faice that he was receiving rent from the opposite party whereas it is admitted fact that the defendant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground of purchase of the land from the mother of the petitioner and for such declaration he has also instituted Title Suit No.01/04 which is also pending. In a decision rendered by this Court in Birjay Prasad Singh and others Vs. Nil Ratan Singh, reported in 1998(2) BLJ, it has been - 3 - held that it cannot be assumed that the defendant was occupying suit property as tenant if there is denial by the defendant, unless otherwise specifically proved on the basis of evidence which can be done only at the stage of final hearing of the suit. In the aforesaid case, the defendants/petitioners had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and also payment of rent, contending that he was the full brother of plaintiff/opposite party and suit property was joint family property. However, the trial court had allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 15 of the Act directing the defendant/petitioners to deposit rent. This Court had set aside the decision of the trial court on the ground that there was no prima facie finding by the trial court with regard to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and the matter was only allowed on assumption that such relationship exists. However, in the present case , the trial court has come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie evidence on record with regard to existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. That apart, the defendant has not only denied the landlord and tenant relationship rather he has filed Title Suit for declaration of title upon the separate suit property also. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order committed by the court below. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)