IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20515 of 2011 Jitendra Kumar Singh Versus Nilam Kumari & Anr ---------------------------------- 2. 24.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.8.2011 passed by Munsif – III, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2010 whereby the learned court below directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent from November 2007 to July 2011 at the rate of Rs.750/- per month within 15 days from the date of order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted hat the plaintiff of the eviction suit is not the landlord of the present petitioner and a dispute is pending between late Pandey Girindra Narayan Sinha and full brother of the husband of late Nagina Devi namely late Rameshwari Prasad. In such circumstances the court below had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to deposit the rent in the court below particularly, when plaintiff is not the landlord. It is stated that on the basis of will the vendor of plaintiff was claiming title. That will has been challenged in Title Sit No. 4 of 1998 which was allowed by the court below and against that misc. appeal has been filed as Misc. Appeal No. 620 of 2011 which is still pending. Admittedly, the vendor of the plaintiff of this eviction suit namely late Pandey Girindra Narayan Sinha filed the Title Suit No.4 of 1998 for grant of letters of administration which has been allowed. Admittedly, the plaintiff of this eviction suit has purchased the property from the said late Pandey Girindra Narayan Singha. It is also admitted that the present petitioner who is defendant in eviction suit was paying rent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month to late Pandey Girindra Narayan Sinha. Now taking the advantage of dispute between late Pandey Girindra Narayan Sinha and other party regarding that probate proceeding the petitioner is challenging the title of the plaintiff. The petitioner is not claiming title on him. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below has rightly directed the petitioner to deposit rent. I find no jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)