IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.470 of 2009 Mini Sinha, W/O late Krishna Murari Prasad Sinha, Radhika Bhawan at Mohalla Rani Ghat, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, Patna 800006, Town and District-Patna ---------- Plaintiff/Petitioner. Versus 1. Hemant Kishore, S/O late Mahendra Prasad Sahani. 2. Smt. Reena Devi W/O Hemant Kishore, both permanent resident at Village Thika, P.O. Kakarhat, P.S. Dernibazar, District-Saran, at present residing as tenant at Radhika Bhawan Mohalla Ranighat, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanganj, Patna-800006, Town and District-Patna ---- Defendant/Opposite Party. --------------- 5 29.7.2010 Heard Mr. Mukund Jee for the petitioner, and Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan for the opposite parties. This civil revision application under the provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiff of Title Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2005 (Smt. Minni Sinha Vrs. Sri Hemant & Ors.), whereby his application under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for deposit of monthly rental, has been rejected, mainly on the ground that the status of the parties during the pendency of the suit have fundamentally changed. 2. The matter comes up before us under very interesting circumstances. The plaintiff is the petitioner in 2 the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The present petitioner instituted the said Title Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2005, for the defendant’s eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The tenancy had commenced in 1989, and, according to the plaintiff, he lastly received rent at the rate of Rs.650/- per month upto November, 2004. 2.1. During pendency of the present suit, the parties entered into an agreement for sale. Part of the consideration money, namely, fifty-thousand, was paid to the plaintiff by way of advance. It is further stated that the plaintiff refused to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant leading to a suit for specific performance of contract at the instance of the present defendant, namely, Title Suit No.160 of 2006. The same was decreed by the judgment dated 22.9.2007. Learned trial court executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant leading to First Appeal No. 259 of 2007 at the instance of the present plaintiff (the defendant of T.S. No.160 of 2006), and is pending in this Court. We are further informed at the Bar that this Court had passed order for maintainance of status-quo of possession 3 between the parties in First Appeal No.259 of 2007. We are further informed at the Bar that the plaintiff of Title suit No.160 of 2006 (Harinandan Verma Vrs. Shanti Devi & Ors.), the defendant-respondent herein, deposited the balance of consideration money, namely, Rs.8,50,000/- in Execution Case No.11 of 2007, which is lying in deposit. It is further stated that the defendant of Title Suit No.160 of 2006 instituted a criminal case against the present petitioner and he had to file an application for anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, with the learned trial court in the criminal case, which he had received by way of advance at the time of execution of the agreement for sale. 3. It is in this background that the present petitioner filed application under section 15 of the Act in the present Title Eviction Suit No.16 of 2005, for deposit of rent in court with effect from December, 2004, which has been rejected on the ground that, in view of the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.160 of 2006, and execution of the registered sale deed, the status of the parties has 4 fundamentally changed. In other words, the defendant- respondent in the present proceedings is now the landlord and has ceased to be a tenant with effect from 3.3.2008, the date of execution of the registered sale deed. We agree with the approach of the learned trial court in the present suit for the purpose of disposal of the application under Section 115 of the Code. This, however, does not conclude the matter. 4. There is yet another question which arises for consideration. First Appeal No. 259 of 2007, at the instance of the present petitioner, is pending in this Court. It is a possible situation that the appeal, being a forum of facts, may be allowed, and is equally a possible situation that the same may be dismissed. Therefore, we have to balance the equities so that the present plaintiff does not suffer if his appeal in this Court succeeds, and equally the defendant does not suffer if the First Appeal is dismissed. In such a situation, we are of the view that the present defendant should not be required to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, which shall abide the result of adjudication. In case First Appeal No.259 of 2007 is allowed, then it will be open to the present plaintiff to 5 pray for adjustment of arrears of rent, if any, from the amount deposited in Title Suit No.160 of 2006, by the present defendant. 5. In the result, this civil revision application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. The learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )