IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4592 of 2010 SARDAR AMARJEET SINGH @ SARDAR AMAR SINGH @ AMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE JAGAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MUNHARA GALI PARIL KOTHI, P.O. AND P.S. DEHRI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. … DEFENDANT….. PETITIONER. Versus MD.AHTESHAMUDDIN, SON OF LATE ABDUL QYUM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SADAR CHOWK, WARD NO. 26, P.O. AND P.S. DEHRI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. … RESPONDENT. ----------- 2. 03.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner /tenant and for the respondent/landlord who has appeared suo motu. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated23.5.2009 of the 3rd Additional Munsif in Eviction Case No. 6 of 2008 directing him to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands in question are Khas Mahal lands. The father of the respondent defaulted in payments when certificate proceedings were directed against him including cancellation of the lease and eviction. The lands were then proposed to be settled in favour of one Sabhapati Singh, the petitioners pay rent to the wife of Sabhapati Singh. Counsel for the respondent relies upon the impugned order to submit that in the Municipal records the shop premises which earlier stood in the name of the father of the respondent, presently stands recorded in the name of the respondent. The grounds sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner do not appear to have been pressed or raised before the Munsif as it finds no discussion in the impugned order. There is no pleading in the writ petition that points and issues raised had not been considered more particularly what has been presently urged. If the Municipal records show that the petitioner as the landlord in occupation, whether the Khas Mahal lease subsists or not is not relevant at this stage between the petitioner and the respondent. The court finds no reason interfere with the order dated 23.5.2009 the application is dismissed. Ibrar/- ( Navin Sinha, J.)