IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2088 of 2006 UDAY BHAN SINGH S/o Radha Kishun Singh resident of Mohallah Lah Bazar P.O. Chapra P.S.Chapra Town Dist. Saran Defendant- petitioner Versus 1. Sri Ram Janaki (Deities) through Mutwali O.P. No.2 to 5 2. Prem Kumar Gupta 3. Hemant Kumar Gupta 4. Santosh Kumar Gupta 5. Rakesh Kumar Gupta All sons of Rama Shankar Gupta resident of Mohallah Purani Gurhatti, Sahebganj Bazar P.S. Chapra Town Dist. Saran Plaintiffs- opposite parties ---------- 2 12.08.2009 Heard Mr Mahesh Narain Parbat, learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2006 passed in Eviction Case no. 8 of 2005 by Civil Judge I, Junior Division, Chapra whereby the concerned court has directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit monthly rent admitted rate of Rs 200/- per month from July,2005 to August, 2006 and for every subsequent month and thereafter for 10th of each month. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner has invested Rs 66,000/- for renovation/maintenance of the house concerned. It is also submitted that he has also invested Rs 12,000/- for construction of septic tank which should have been adjusted but that having not been done, the order is harsh upon the defendant-petitioner. The court below after hearing the rival submissions has come to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. The case of the plaintiff is that tenancy was at the rate of Rs - 2 - 500/- per month whereas the case of the defendant-petitioner is that it was at the rate of Rs 40/- earlier which was enhanced to Rs 200/- per month. It is also admitted that for recovery of the aforesaid amount invested for renovation of the building concerned a separate title suit has been filed by the defendant-petitioner. Thus, in my opinion, there is no illegality in the order under challenge as the defendant-tenant has been directed only to deposit rent from the date of filing of such application under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1982. The court has taken care in recording finding that the order is not final rather it is an interim arrangement and the same will be decided in the suit later on. It has also not asked the defendant-petitioner for payment of arrear of rent as the same is also to be decided later on. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in this civil revision and the same is dismissed. shahid (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)