IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.489 of 2009 LAKSHMAN RAI @ LAKSHMAN PRASAD YADAV, SON OF PYAREY RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.-JALALPUR, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR HAVING HIS TENANTED SHIP AT CHATABAZAR, P.O. & DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ……………DEFENDANT/PETITIONER. Versus HARI NARAYAN CHAUDHARY, S/O LATE NANAK SHARAN CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF CHHATA BAZAR TOWN MUZAFFARPUR, P.S. & DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ……………PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 2 26.03.2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the defendant-tenant against order dated 29.1.2009 passed by Munsif East Muzaffarpur in Eviction Suit No. 29 of 2005 by which the petition of the plaintiff- landlord under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been allowed and the defendant has been directed to deposit arrears of rent. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant had disputed the lease deed held upon by the plaintiff and therefore no order could passed by the court under Section 15 of the Act for deposit of arrears of rent on the basis of such lease deed. He further submits that 2 although the defendant accepts that he was tenant of Dwarika Nath High School but he has denied that he was a tenant of plaintiff and therefore there is dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant. He further submits that under Section 15 of the Act the court below should have passed orders for deposit of arrears of rent only for the last three years and not from the date of suit. After going through the order, it appears that the plaintiff had filed a Title Suit against the defendant-petitioner as well as against Dwarika Nath High School for declaration of his title in respect of the suit properties. The suit was decreed and thereafter all efforts of Dwarika Nath High School as well as present defendant- petitioner to get the judgment of trial court passed in favour of plaintiff failed as they lost up to the stage of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is apparent that the title of the plaintiff-opposite party in respect of suit property has been perfected. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the plaintiff-opposite party has 3 succeeded in the suit of Dwarika Nath High School in respect of the properties in question and his title has been perfected. Since the defendant-petitioner has accepted himself as a tenant of Dwarika Nath High School, the relationship of landlord and tenant does not stand disputed in view of the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since the execution proceeding in respect of the said earlier judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party is still pending the title is not perfected. This court is unable to accept the submission. Once the judgment and decree of the trial court has become final the title vests in the party concerned and it is only the question of possession of the property, physical or notional, which has to be effected in the execution case. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, I find that the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner has no merit and the court below has not 4 committed any error or material irregularity in passing the impugned order. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed. The time granted by learned court below for deposit of arrears of rent is extended by 15 days from today. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)