IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.48 of 2010 Sunil Kumar Sinha Versus Rajendra Krishna Agarwal & Anr ----------- 2 13.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. By the order impugned in the present revision application, the learned Court below has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff made under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as Act) and has directed the defendant tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and further to continue to deposit the current rent of the suit premises. The eviction suit No. 2 of 2009 has been filed by the opposite parties before the Sub Judge I, Darbhanga, seeking the relief for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also personal necessity. The reliefs prayed in the Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2009 have been mentioned in the Revision application a perusal of which shows that by way of relief number (b) the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree for arrears of rent mentioned under Schedule II of the plaint with pendetelite monthly rental of the suit premises. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since one of the reliefs prayed by the plaintiff in the suit is with regard to the payment of arrears of rent and so the petition of the plaintiff under Section 15 of the Act is not maintainable. Elaborating his contention the learned counsel has submitted that granting the relief under Section 15 of the Act would amount to granting one of the reliefs sought in the suit, in the 2 midway. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has contested that submission and has asserted that the right to realize the arrears of rent and seek payment of current rent is the statutory right of a landlord during the pendency of an eviction suit and the Court is competent to grant the said relief before the final adjudication of the suit. From the impugned order, it appears that the defendant (petitioner) has admitted the tenancy and further he has also admitted the rate of rent. His case of earlier payment of some amount to the plaintiffs is still to be adjudicated in the suit. The provision contained in Section 15 of the Act is meant to safeguard the interest of a landlord whose house is under occupation of the tenant who is not making the payment of rent for the occupation of house. The submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, if accepted would amount to curtailing the scope of Section 15 which is to be invoked only during the pendency of a suit for eviction when the tenant contests the claim of ejectment. The claim of the relief for payment of arrear of rent and current in the plaint alongwith other reliefs in a suit for eviction cannot preclude the plaintiff from exercising his rights as provided under Section 15 of the Act. As such, I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. Saif (V. Nath. J.)