IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.533 of 2007 Ravi Shankar Keshri S/o Late Gopal Das Keshri resident of 202 Angad Apartment, New Patliputra Colony P.S. Patliputra Dist. Patna Plaintiff- Petitioner Versus 1. Brajesh Kumar Singh 2. Mukesh Kumar Singh Both sons of Shiv Jee Singh resident of C/o Sri Nagendra Prasad Kusum Cottage. Salimpur Ahara. Kadamkuan and also C/o 28 Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan Fraser Road, Patna Defendants- Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Abinash Kumar, Advocate ------------ 03 10.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 08.01.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge IV, Patna while allowing his application under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) passed in Eviction Suit no. 26 of 2005 directed the defendants- opposite parties to deposit arrear of rent at the rate of Rs 2800/- from September,2005 till the date of order within 15 days and also to go on depositing current rent at the same rate for each month in the first week of the next succeeding month. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction of opposite parties from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent since April,2003 claiming that the defendants were inducted in the suit premises as tenants on the basis of memorandum of lease dated 22.04.2002 by which monthly rent fixed was Rs 4800/- The further ground for eviction was bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises which is shop situated at - 2 - Frazer Road, Patna. The defendants appeared and contested the suit, whereafter issues were framed and hearing of the suit started. 4. In the meantime, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application in the court below on 15.09.2006 under the provision of 15 of the Act for payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs 4800/- per month from April, 2003 and also current rent . The said application was contested by the defendants- opposite parties. However, the learned court below partly allowed the application of the plaintiff- petitioner directing defendants-opposite parties to pay arrears of rent since September,2005 till the date of the order and also to pay current rent at the rate of Rs 2800/- per month vide its order dated 08.01.2007. This order has been challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner in the instant civil revision. 5. From the facts and circumstance as well as the submissions and materials on record including the impugned order, it transpires that although plaintiff-petitioner had claimed that rent of the suit premises was Rs 4800/-per month as per memorandum of lease dated 22.04.2002 and rent is due since April, 2003, but the defendants-opposite parties while admitting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties denied execution of any such memorandum of lease dated 22.04.2002 and claimed that the rent was Rs 2800/- per month and it was due only from September,2005. 6. Since the instant suit was for eviction on the grounds including the ground of personal necessity, the learned court below without going into the detail of enquiry with respect to the specific - 3 - statements of the plaintiff, allowed his claim on the basis of the fact admitted by the defendants. This does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in the suit for arrears of rent at the rate of 4800/- per month from April, 2003 on the basis of memorandum of lease dated 22.04.2002 has been discarded. 7. The said claim of the plaintiff-petitioner has to be considered on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties at the time of final hearing of the suit. Furthermore, the impugned order is merely for the purpose of section 15 of the Act and does not take away any right of the plaintiff. 8. In view of the aforesaid principle of law, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the eviction suit. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)