IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.509 of 2007 Daya Shankar Prasad son of Sri Ram Lakhan Prasad, resident of village Rampur Rajwa (Hasanpur Bazar), P.O. Hasanpur Sugar Mills, P.S. Hasanpur, Sub-division Rosera, District Samastipur………………………………....Defendant-Petitioner. Versus Kamal Kumar Goyal son of Late Mahadeolal Agrawal, resident of village Maranchi Ujagar (Hasanpur Bazar), P.O. Hasanpur Sugar Mills, P.S. Hasanpur, District Samastipur…………………………………Plaintiff-Opposite party. For the petitioner : M/s Uma Shankar Singh No.2 and Krishna Pd. Singh No.2, Advocates. For the opposite party : M/s Bhupendra Narain Sinha and Vandana Singh, Advocates. ----------- 03/ 15.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner and learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 29.12.2006 by which the learned Munsif (Civil Judge, Junior Division), Rosera, allowed the application of the sole plaintiff-opposite party under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and directed the defendant to pay all the arrears of rent since 01.07.2001 up to December, 2006 within 45 days at the rate of Rs.1,500.00 per month and also to go on paying current rent at the same rate from the month of January, 2007 in Eviction Suit No.05 of 2001. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. The defendant appeared 2 and contested the suit, whereafter issues were framed. 4. During the pendency of the suit an application dated 29.08.2006 was filed by the plaintiff under section 15 of the Act, which was contested by the defendant who filed a rejoinder dated 09.11.2006, but the learned court below vide its order dated 29.12.2006 allowed the said application. The said order is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. After considering the arguments of leaned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that the learned court below passed the impugned order after considering the respective claims of the parties and came to the conclusion that prima facie case of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was made out and admittedly the defendant did not pay any rent at least since the filing of the suit. Hence the application of the plaintiff under section 15 of the Act was allowed. 6. The admitted facts are that the suit property originally belonged to Ram Lakhan Prasad (the father of the defendant) and that the said Ram Lakhan Prasad by registered sale deed of August, 2000 transferred the suit land to the plaintiff on which basis the plaintiff filed the suit. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant is that the said sale deed was without consideration and was never acted upon and hence on the basis of the said deed, the plaintiff cannot raise claim. 7. However, from the records it is quite apparent that neither the defendant nor his father ever cancelled the said sale deed 3 nor filed any suit for any such relief nor even the defendant filed any counter claim in the instant suit, although nine years have lapsed since the admitted execution of the registered deed of transfer by the father of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the findings of the learned court below appear to be legal and proper. 8. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the leaned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction that the defendant-petitioner shall deposit the arrears of rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs.1,500.00 per month from 01.07.2001 up to 30.09.2009 in the court below by 30th October, 2009 and thereafter go on depositing the rent of the suit premises at the same rate for the month of October, 2009 onwards, in court below, by 10th of the next succeeding month. The plaintiff will be entitled to recover the said rent from the court on furnishing proper security to the satisfaction of the learned court below. 9. Furthermore, since the instant suit is for eviction on the ground of personal requirement and is pending for about eight years, the learned court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the eviction suit preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )