IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1556 of 2006 PERVEZ HUSSAIN Versus SHRAWAN KUMAR ----------- 2 15.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order refusing the prayer of the petitioner under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short ‘the Act’), cannot be sustained for a simple reason that the same is contrary to the pleadings on record. The defendant-tenant-opposite party in the suit in his written statement has not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant as asserted by the plaintiff-landlord-petitioner. As a matter of fact paragraph no.2 of the rejoinder filed by the defendant- tenant in the court below in relation to the application filed by the petitioner for payment of rent in terms of Section 15 of the Act is itself is a proof of the fact that not only the defendant-tenant has accepted the petitioner as a landlord but had also come out with a case with regard to the payment of rent to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the court below had to decide only two issues namely what was the amount of last rent paid and whether there was any arrear which also was payable in terms of Section 15 of the Act along 2 with current rent. Thus even if it was found that no arrear was existing, the Court below was required to pass an order for payment of current rent in as Section 15 of the Act clearly envisages the concept of payment of month to month rent till the disposal of the eviction suit. The Court below however has not at all gone to this aspect of the matter and its halfhearted approach in passing the order rejecting the prayer cannot be approved by this Court. As the Court below has not applied itself on the most crucial question on the basis of the existing pleadings on record especially in the light of the stand taken by defendant-tenant in the written statement as well as in his rejoinder to the application under Section 15 of the Act filed by the petitioner, it would be necessary for the Court below to reconsider the said prayer in accordance with law. The impugned order accordingly is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for a reconsideration in the light of the aforementioned observations. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)