IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11016 of 2010 SHEO KUMAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE SITA RAM PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILL.- PAKRA, P.S. NAUGACHIA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS UPENDRA SHARMA S/O LATE PURAN SHARMA, R/O VILL.- NAWADA, P.S. NAUGACHIA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR …RESPONDENT For the petitioner : M/s Chitra Gupta Prasad and Brajesh Kr. Singh, Advocates. For the respondent : M/s Shrinandan Pd. Singh and Manoj Kumar No.1, Advocates. ----------- 02/ 25.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner as well as learned counsel for the sole respondent. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 03.06.2010 (Annexure-3) by which the Munsif, Naugachia disposed of the petition filed by the plaintiff- petitioner under section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 without directing the defendant- respondent to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent in accordance with law in the court in Eviction Suit No.41 of 2008. The aforesaid eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for eviction of the sole defendant-respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant as well as the bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that he was a co-sharer of the suit premises and hence he had the right and cause of action to file the aforesaid suit. The aforesaid suit was contested by the sole defendant-respondent and the pleadings are complete. During dependency of the aforesaid suit, plaintiff- 2 petitioner filed an application under section 15 of the Act for payment/deposit of arrears of rent as well as the current rent. The said claim of the plaintiff-petitioner was contested by the defendant- respondent who claimed that he was not the tenant of plaintiff, rather he was the tenant of the other person and is regularly paying rent to him and hence there was no occasion for the defendant to pay rent again to the plaintiff-petitioner. The court below very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the materials produced by them and came to the conclusion that although it was admitted by the defendant that he was the tenant and rent was Rs.1,000.00 per month but he being a tenant of another person was paying rent to that person. In the said circumstances, the onus was squarely upon the plaintiff to prove that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the defendant and that the defendant had lastly paid rent to him or that he was the co-sharer of the other person, but the plaintiff-petitioner miserably failed to support his claim by any material whatsoever. Hence, the court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)