IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6265 of 2006 STATE BANK OF INDIA, BAKHTIARPUR BRANCH, BAKHTIARPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER (TENANT)- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, PATNA. 4. SDO-CUM-HOUSE CONTROLLER, BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. BHUVNESHWAR SINGH ALIAS PAPPU SINGH, SON OF LATE JAGDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAKHTIARPUR, P.O. & P.S.- BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA (LANDLORD)- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha & Brajesh Ranjan, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, A.C. to A.A.G.-I. ===== 2. 04.04.2011. Perused the contents of I.A. No.2057 of 2007. It appears during the pendency of the writ petition Respondent No.5 left for his heavenly abode leaving behind his wife, son and daughter as heir and legal representative. 2. Let name of respondent no.5 be expunged from the records of this case and his wife, son and daughter, named in paragraph-1 of the interlocutory application be substituted as Respondent Nos.5a, b and c. 3. I.A. No.2057 of 2007 is, accordingly, disposed of. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. None appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5a,b & c although counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. 5. Petitioner-tenant is aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2006 passed in Case No. 63/2004, Annexure-9, whereunder petitioner-tenant has been 2 directed to deposit the arrears/current rent of the premises-in-question at the rate determined by the House Controller, whereafter the revision application shall be admitted for hearing. 6. Counsel for the petitioner assails the said order on the ground that during the pendency of the revision application, revisional authority ought to have directed the petitioner-tenant to deposit the rent determined by the revisional authority and not by the House Controller. 7. Aforesaid submission has been noted for being rejected as the revisional authority while considering the revision application is considering the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the House Controller, appellate authority, as such, if by way of interim measure the revisional authority has directed for deposit of arrears/current rent of the premises-in- question at the rate determined by the House Controller duly affirmed by the appellate authority, I do not see any illegality in the said order. Petitioner-tenant having deposited the amount as directed by the revisional authority could have asked the revisional authority not to permit withdrawal of the entire deposited amount by the landlord Respondent Nos. 5a,b & c and to permit withdrawal of the amount at reduced rate. Such submission having not been made by the petitioner before the revisional authority, I am not inclined to entertain 3 this writ application, which is dismissed. 8. From the counter affidavit filed by Ravi Shankar Singh Jahanavi, son of deceased Respondent No. 5, Bhuvneshwar Singh @ Pappu Singh it appears that Revision Case No. 63/2004 has been dismissed for default under orders dated 02.02.2007, whereafter request to restore the same has also been rejected under orders dated 17.11.2009. Aforesaid two orders are contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to the said counter affidavit. In the event revisional authority, namely, the Commissioner, Patna Division decides to restore Revision Case No. 63 of 2004, it shall be open for the petitioner to deposit the entire amount as per the direction of the revisional authority contained in the impugned order. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)