IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1348 of 2006 SMT. MANORMA DEVI Versus M/S BOOK CENTRE & ORS ----------- 2 4.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court there is no infirmity much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 4.7.2006 whereby and whereunder for the good reasons recorded by the Court below it has refused to pass an order for payment of rent in terms of Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that as a matter of fact, the premises earlier belonged to some other person and the petitioner is a purchaser which makes the defendants, opposite parties now their tenant. He therefore submits that when the petitioner, defendant was earlier paying rent of Rs. 1000/- to her earlier owner, it will be presumed that the last rent paid was Rs. 1000/-. In the opinion of this Court, such hypothetical basis cannot be a ground for directing payment of rent under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act where the requirement of law is that such last rent paid to the present landlord seeking eviction in the touch stone on which the Court below has to proceed and pass an order for payment of rent by the tenant . The expression ‘determination’ used under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act is to be read in conformity with the aforementioned requirement of last rent paid and they cannot be read in isolation or by making them mutually 2 exclusive to each other. Counsel for the petitioner next had tried to rely on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shamim Ara Naz & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Quamruddin reported in 1997 BLJ (2) 193. In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment could not be applicable for a simple reason that the issue which has been decided therein are in the background of the facts and circumstances of that case. The said case is not an authority laying down the law that the moment the landlord files an application claiming payment of rent under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act, it has to be necessarily allowed by the Court below irrespective of the fact as to whether there is a proof of last rent paid or not. In that view of the matter, the case of Shamim Ara Naz (supra) will not in any way improve the present case. That being the position, this Court would not find any reason to interfere the impugned order and this civil revision application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)