IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.107 of 2008 Kusum Devi wife of Sri Sushil Kumar, M/s National Hosiery, Shop No.116, Khaitan Super Market, Birla Mandir Road, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. ……..Defendant no.1-Petitioner Versus 1. Sangeeta Agrawal, wife of Dr. J.G. Agrawal, resident of A/32, Jagat Amrawati Apartment Mahesh Nagar, behind Officer’s Flat, Bailey Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna. …..Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set 2. Pawan Kumar Sarraf, son of Sri Kali Charan Sarraf, Shop at Damodar Market, Birla Mandir Road, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. ……Defendant no.2-Opposite party 2nd set For the petitioner : Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 30.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1-petitioner challenging order dated 10.10.2007 by which learned Execution Munsif, Patna allowed the application filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 in Eviction Suit No.14 of 2005 under the provision of section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party no.1 for eviction of the defendants on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff as well as default in payment of rent by the defendants along with other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff. 4. However, during the pendency of the suit the 2 plaintiff filed an application under section 15 of the Act for a direction to the defendants to pay arrears of rent as well as current rent at the rate of Rs.695.00 per month. This application has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 10.10.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposes the said order of the learned court below, but from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the defendants did not claim right, title or interest of their own over the suit property rather they claimed that they were the tenants of another person in the shop room, but no receipt was produced showing payment of rent to the said person during the period claimed by the plaintiff. 6. In the said circumstances the learned lower court very carefully considered the entire matter in detail and found that admittedly the defendants were the tenants and the rent was Rs.695.00 per month and hence the court below directed the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent from 09.03.2005 till the date of the order and also to go on depositing current rent by 10th of the next succeeding month. It was also directed that neither of the parties would withdraw the said amount deposited in court and it will be paid to the succeeding party after the disposal of the suit. 7. 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. 3 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, specially due to the pendency of this civil revision, it is directed that if defendant no.1-petitioner has not deposited arrears of rent as well as current rent as per the impugned order, she must deposit the entire arrears of rent from 09.03.2005 till 31.10.2009 positively by 30th of November, 2009 in one lump sum and go on depositing the current rent from November, 2009 onwards by 10th of the next succeeding month. If this order is complied the defence of the defendant-petitioner will not be struck off due to non- compliance of the impugned order dated 10.10.2007. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )