IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1616 of 2008 1. Md. Mannan son of late Usman 2. Md. Irfan son of Rafique 3. Arjun Yadav son of Maheshwari Yadav 4. Md. Serajuddin son of Md. Rafique 5. Sk. Jahangir son of Sheikh Allauddin 6. Md. Islam son of Barho Mian 7. Md. Ashraf son of Abdul Rahim 8. Manjoj Sharma son of Badri Sharma 9. Om Prakash Sharma son of late Puna Misktry 10. Rajesh Bishwakarma son of Biro Bishwakarma 11. Naresh Pandit son of Banarsi Pandit 12. Md. Ashraf son of Md. Hasib 13. Md. Gulam Rabbani son of Md. Hamid 14. Naim son of Md. Rahman 15. Md. Allauddin son of Md. Hanif 16. Md. Ismail son of Nazo Main All residents of Mohalla Bari Dargah, Purani Bazar, P.S. & District Lakhisarai. ….Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Sheikh Zaimurddin, son of late Sheikh Abdul Azim, resident of Mohalla Bari Dargah, Purani Bazar, P.S. and District Lakhisarai … Plaintiff-Opposite Ist Party. 2. The Sunni Wakf Board, Harding Road, Patna 3. Md. Serajuddin, son of late Md. Rafique President of Managing Committee recognized by the Wakf Board Managing Committee recognizing by the Wakf Board, resident of Mohalla Bari Dargah, Purjani Bazar, P.S. and District Lakhaisarai. 4. Md. Shahanshah Alam, Secretary son of late Md. Quddus Ansari, resident of Mohalla Bari Dargah, Purani Bazar, P.S. and District Laikhisarai … Opposite 2nd Parties ----- 07/ 09.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and learned counsel for opposite party no.2, namely the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board ( hereinafter referred to as `the Board’ for the sake of brevity), which, although was not a party to the suit, has been impleaded by the petitioners in the instant civil revision. 2 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendants-petitioners against order dated 15.07.2008, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Lakhisarai directed them to deposit arrears of rent at their respective rates in the court below and also to deposit month to month rent in the court. 3. The aforesaid order was passed in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2007, which was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and also for recovery of arrears of rent as well as for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit, defendants appeared and contested. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff-opposite party filed an application under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ), which was contested by the defendants but was finally allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 15.07.2008, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the defendants- petitioners is that plaintiff-opposite party no.1 was neither the owner of the suit property nor the defendants ever paid rent to him. It was also claimed by defendants-petitioners that the suit property is a Wakf property duly recorded in the registers of the Board since 2004 and is being looked after by a Committee formed by the people of the locality and approved by the Board and defendants-petitioners 3 are regularly paying rent to the said Committee. 6. Learned counsel for the Board also supports the contention of learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, who submits that the Board has already filed an intervention application in the learned court below for being added as a party to the eviction suit in view of section 92 of the Wakf Act, 1995. However, learned counsel for plaintiff-opposite party no.1 opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as of learned counsel for the Board. 7. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the intervention application, if filed in the court below, has not yet been heard and, admittedly, no order has been passed on the said application nor `the Board’ is impleaded in the suit as yet. Furthermore, admittedly, defendants-petitioners are tenants in their respective portions of the suit premises and the only dispute is whether their landlord is the plaintiff or the Board. 8. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was very careful in directing the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the current rent in the court and did not direct them to pay it to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the learned court below in its impugned order specifically held that no person should be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the court decides the dispute between the two claimants with respect to the relationship or ownership and only thereafter order for payment of the deposited 4 amount will be passed. 9. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 10. If the defendants-petitioners deposit the entire remaining arrears of rent up to September, 2009 at the given rate in the court below within thirty days from today, their defence against ejectment shall not be struck off. 11. Furthermore, if any intervention application is filed by the Board, the learned court below shall dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months without being influenced or prejudiced by this order one way or the other. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )