IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11418 of 2010 1. KUMUD RANJAN ANAND, S/O SHYAMA NAND MISHRA, ADVOCATE. 2. SHYAMA NAND MISHRA, ADVOCATE, BAR ASSOCIATION, DARBHANGA CIVIL COURT S/O SRI ARBIND MISHRA, BOTH R/O TOLA KANAKPURA, VILL.- UJAN, P.S. MANIGACHHI, DISTT.- DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA MISHRATOLA, DIGHI WEST, P.O. STATION ROAD, P.S. TOWN, DISTT.- DARBHANGA. DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA. 2. YOGENDRA JHA S/O LATE MAHABIR JHA R/O VILL.- CHIKNA, P.S. GHOGHERDIHA, DISTT.- MADHUBANI AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA MITHILA COLONY, RAJIV NAGAR, P.S. RAJIV NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Juli Kumari, A.C. to S.C.3 For respondent no.2 : M/s R.K.Singh & B.Choudhary, Advocates. -------- 03/ 08.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for private respondent no.2. 2. This writ petition has been file by defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 15.10.2009 by which Subordinate Judge-I, Darbhanga rejected the application of the petitioners for holding spot inspection of the suit premises before passing final order under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) in Eviction Suit No.08 of 2007. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent no.2 for eviction of defendants-petitioners on the grounds of - 2 - personal necessity of the plaintiff, default in payment of rent by the defendants-petitioners and for arrears of rent etc. In the aforesaid suit, defendants-petitioners appeared and contested. 4. It further transpires that plaintiff –respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 15 of the Act for payment of arrears of rent as well as current rent. During pendency of the said application, defendants-petitioners also filed an application for holding spot inspection of the suit premises before passing any final order under Section 15 of the Act. This application of defendants-petitioners has been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 15.10.2009. 5. Although learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent no.2 vehemently challenges the said order on the ground that an order has already been passed by the House Controller allowing defendants-petitioners to repair the suit premises and adjust the cost from the rent, but it is quite apparent that for the said purpose no spot inspection is required and furthermore it is for the parties to prove their pleadings on the basis of their own evidence and they cannot take help of the process of the court for the purpose of collecting evidence. Furthermore, so far the order of House Controller is concerned, that has to be considered by the court below in accordance with law. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the court below to decide the application of - 3 - plaintiff-respondent no.2 under Section 15 of the Act in accordance with law within thirty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)