IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21835 of 2011 Yogendra Prasad Swarnkar Versus Smt.Chandrawati Devi ---------------------------------- 03. 15.12.2011 This application is treated as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant-tenant has filed this application against the order dated 18.05.2011 passed by Munsif II, Patna in Eviction Suit No.6 of 2010 whereby the learned Court below directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent from the month of September, 2009 at the rate of Rs.550 per month and current rent within 15th day in every month. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, with consent of the landlord, the petitioner has spent Rs.1,52,506 in establishing shutter, grill and also in paying the electric bills. The plaintiff had assured the defendant that the said amount will be adjusted in future rent but the learned Court below did not adjust the said amount and directed the petitioner to deposit the rent. Admittedly, the suit has been filed for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default. In the case of Maksudan Prakash Kesarwani alias Maksudan Prasad vs. Abid Ahmad and others, 1987 PLJR 260, this Court has held that the tenant 2 cannot absolve himself from the liability of eviction even if there was a contract between the parties for adjustment of a particular payment made by the tenant to the landlord towards future rental. It appears that in that case also, the tenant prayed for adjustment of the amount due on account of purchase of medicine from the medicine shop of the defendant-tenant. In the present case, the amount due from the plaintiff is alleged by the defendant- petitioner is disputed and, therefore, it is a matter to be considered finally at the time of judgment. The learned Court below considering this fact has held that whether in fact, the amount was spent by the defendant or not is a question of fact that may be decided only after evidence. In such view of the matter, in my opinion, the impugned order is neither illegal nor there is any jurisdictional error. Therefore, interference in supervisory jurisdiction is uncalled for. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)