IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.269 of 2007 Ajay Kumar Verma, Son of Late Shankar Charan Verma, Resident of Mohalla- Juran Chhapra, Road No.4, P.O.- Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Brahmapura, District-Muzaffarpur. (Defendant 1st Party in the court below) …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Meera Devi, wife of Shri Nand Kishore Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Chhoti Kalayani, P.S.-Mithan- Pura, P.O.-Ramna, District-Muzzafarpur (Plaintiff In the court below) 2. Kumar Narendra, son of Name not known. 3. Abhishek @ Pinkku, son of Kumar Narendra, both Resident of Mohalla-Rajput Tola, Bela, P.O. & P.S.- Bela, District-Muzaffarpur. (Defendant 2nd Part in the court below) ……Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mrs. Rekha Prasad, Advocate. 2. 10. 07. 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the name of O.P.No.1 at page no. 1 of the revision petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This Civil Revision has been filed by Defendant No. 1-Petitioner challenging order dated 15. 12. 2006 passed by the learned Munsif, East Muzaffarpur in Eviction Suit No. 26 of 2004 allowing the petition of Plaintiff- O.P.No. 1 filed under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and directed Defendant No.1-Petitioner to deposit arrears of rent from January, 2005 to November, 2006 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) per month and also to pay the rent from 2 December, 2006 onwards by 15th of the next succeeding month. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by Plaintiff- O.P.No.1 for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the grounds of default of payment of rent by the defendants and bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff-O.P.No.1 and sub- letting to the other defendants. Defendant-petitioner has appeared and is contesting the suit. 5. It transpires that a petition was filed on 04.08.2005 by Plaintiff-O.P.No.1 under the provision of Section 15 of the Act for a direction to Defendant No.1- Petitioner to pay the arrears of rent as well as the current rent. To this petition a rejoinder was filed by Defendant No.1- Petitioner on 17. 02. 2006. After considering the entire mater in detail the learned court below allowed the petition of Plaintiff-O.P. No.1 vide the impugned order dated 15. 12. 2006. 6. From the averments made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner-O.P.No.1 and the materials available on record, it is quite apparent that the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between Plaintiff-O.P.No.1 and Petitioner-Defendant No.1. 7. So far the question of rent is concerned, it is an admitted fact that rent of the suit premises was Rs. 1500/- per month, but according to Plaintiff-O.P.1, the said rent was 3 without any electricity charges whereas Defendant No.1- Petitiner claimed that rent of the suit premises was Rs. 1,000/- per month only and Rs.500/- was for the electricity, but the Plaintiff-O.P.No.1 had stopped electric connection of the Defendants since 1995. 8. So far the question of non-payment of rent is concerned, Plaintiff-O.P.No.1 had claimed that Defendant No.1-Petitioner had stopped payment of rent since August 2004, whereas according to Defendant-Petitioner No. 1, rent had been paid to Plaintiff-O.P.No.1 till December, 2004 and is due since January, 2005, but in the meantime, Plaintiff- O.P.No.1 had filed the aforesaid Eviction suit on 17. 12. 2004 and Defendant No.1-Petitioner had filed his written statement on 15. 03. 2005. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that even, according to the claim of Defendant No.1-Petitioner, the rent is Rs. 1000/- per month and is due since January, 2005 i.e. after filing of the suit. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order directing Defendant No.1- Petitioner to pay the arrears of rent from January, 2005 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month only and no objection can legally be raised by Defendant No.1-Petitioner against that order. However with regard the remaining arrears of rent, as claimed by the plaintiffs, the matter has to be decided finally at the 4 stage of the disposal of the Eviction suit. 10. Another point has been raised on behalf of Defendant No.1-Petitioner that he had paid Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) as advance to the Plaintiff- O.P.No.1 which has been admitted by the Plaintiff-O.P.No.1 in his plaint and hence the arrears of rent should have been adjusted from the said amount paid as advance. From the plaint (Annexure-1) it transpires that no doubt Plaintiff- O.P.No.1 had admitted receipt of advance of Rs. 20,000/- from Defendant No.1-Petitioner in the year 1987, but it has been categorically stated that the said advance was subject to adjustment of Rs. 450/- per month in the monthly rental and it was agreed between the parties that Plaintiff-O.P.No.1 will hand over the shop to Defendant No.1-Petitioner on 01. 07. 1987 and from that date rent will run after adjusting Rs. 450/- per month which would be deducted from the rent fixed for adjustment of the said advance amount. The said deductions would have adjusted the entire advance of Rs. 20,000/- much earlier within 45 months from July 1987 and Defendant No.1- Petitioner had failed to show that the said advance or any part thereof still remained in 2004, when the suit was filed. Although, Defendant No. 1-Petitioner had denied the said claim of Plaintiff-O.P.1 in his written statement, but it was not supported by any material and the same shall be considered at the time of final disposal of the suit on the basis of evidence 5 adduced by the parties. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. SKBOSE ( S. N. Hussain)