IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1540 of 2008 MD.IQBAL Versus RAJKISHORE PRASAD & ANR ----------- C.R. No.1541 of 2008 SHASHI TANTI Versus RAJKISHORE PRASAD & ANR ----------- C.R. No.1542 of 2008 SHAMBHU SAH Versus RAJKISHORE PRASAD & ANR ----------- 2. 15.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court would not find any error in that part of the impugned order which is common in all the three cases, whereby and whereunder the court below has directed to pay the rent both arrear and current @ 400/- under section 15 of the B.B.C.Act. This Court would, however, notice the submission of Mr.Sheo Nandan Rai, learned Senior counsel, that for the moment the plaintiff opposite party, the alleged landlord, should not be allowed to draw the entire rent because as per sale deed in question on the basis of which he has become landlord there is mention of a premises of only two rooms. He has further submitted that consequently the plaintiff opposite 2 party cannot be allowed to draw the arrears and current rent for five rooms/shops in the four suit filed by him when he is owner only of two rooms/shops. This Court would not go into the correctness of the aforementioned submission or otherwise but then as the learned counsel would himself submit that the plaintiff landlord has also claimed the tenanted premises, this Court would direct that half of the rent so deposited by the petitioners in these case would be withdrawn by the plaintiff and the remaining half shall remain in the custody of the court which would be paid to the plaintiff opposite party only in the event of success in the eviction suit. It goes without saying that the payment of rent by the petitioner in compliance of the impugned order passed by the court below will not be taken to be an admission on his part that the petitioner have conceded that the plaintiff opposite party is the landlord. In view of the fact that the court had granted time till 15th September, 2008 3 for deposit of such rent and this order has been passed only on 15th September, 2008 today, this Court would extend time limit for a period of two weeks and the petitioner must deposit both arrear and current as directed by the court below in the impugned order by 29th September, 2008. With the aforementioned observations and directions, all these applications are disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/