IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.62 of 2007 RAM CHANDRA SAH Versus GHURAN YADAV & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Birendra Prasad Verma, Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, Yogendra Kumar and R.N. Ray, Advocates. For the Opp.parties:M/s. Prabhas Ranjan and Ashok Kumar, Advocates. 03. 05.05.2008 I.A. No.1758 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner for substitution of heirs of sole petitioner Ram Chandra Sah, who is said to have died on 27.12.2007 leaving behind him a son and a widow fully detailed in paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application as his heirs and legal representatives. This interlocutory application is within statutory period of limitation and the opposite parties have no objection. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. Let the name of heirs of the sole petitioner be substituted in his place as they have already filed a duly executed Vakalatnama. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This civil revision has been filed by defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 04.12.2006 passed in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2003 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Jhanjharpur, allowed the petition filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties under the provision of section 15 of the Bihar Building(Lease, Rent & Eviction)Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as an Act for the - 2 - sake of brevity)and directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent as well as current rent at the rate of Rs.900/- per month. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds of personal necessity, default in payment of rent by the defendant and also for arrears of rent. It transpires that defendant- petitioner appeared in the suit and contested the plaintiff’s claim, whereafter the plaintiffs-opposite parties filed a petition under section 15 of the Act to which the defendant-petitioner filed a rejoinder. However, the said petition filed by the plaintiffs under the provision of section 15 of the Act for arrears as well as current rent has been allowed by the learned court below, by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner challenges the aforesaid order on the ground that the defendant-petitioner has from the very beginning been claiming that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant and that the defendant-petitioner was residing in the suit premises on the basis of his own right and title and hence, there was no occasion for the learned court below to decide the matter without holding any enquiry with respect to the relationship between the parties and the last paid rent. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon three decisions of this court; in case of Mahabir Ram Vs. Shiva Shankar Pd. & others, reported in P.L.J.R.l(F.B.) 75 and in case of Champa Lal Sharma Vs. Smt. - 3 - Sumita Maitra , reported in 1989 P.L.J.R. 381 and also in case of Rana Ranjit Singh Vs. Arjun Sharma, reported in 2005(2) P.L.J.R. 366. In case of Mahabir Ram(supra) the Full Bench of this court has laid down the procedure which a court has to adopt on an application filed by the plaintiff for depositing of rent by the tenants in a suit for ejectment. The said procedure laid down by this court was that (a) in case the defendant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself, the court has to examine the materials available and come to a conclusion whether the said denial or a dispute as to the title of the plaintiff was bonafide or a mere pretence; and in case there is no prima facie merit in the said denial, the defendant can be called upon to make the deposit if other conditions are fulfilled and that (b) the court has to determine as to what was the rate of rent last paid and as to what amount of rent was in arrear, if any, and the order passed in this connection will be subject to variation, in as much as, the House Controller may determine during the pendency of the suit that the fair rent of the house is somewhat different. Both the other two decisions in case of Champa Lal Sharma(supra) as well as in case of Rana Ranjit Singh(supra)relied upon by the petitioner are based upon the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench. Although the learned court below has not noted the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench but it is quite apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the impugned - 4 - order that the learned court below has considered that the defendant has denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself and thereafter the learned court below went on to examine the materials available and came to a conclusion that admittedly the defendant-petitioner was a tenant of the suit premises and his claim is that he had an agreement for sale from his landlord, namely, original owner and hence, he is in possession of the suit premises as owner. However the learned court below has found that the defendant could not produce any deed of title and was only able to show that he had filed a Title Suit No. 32 of 2003 for specific performance of contract claiming agreement for sale dated 20.11.1991 and hence the said agreement for sale did not create any title and is under consideration in the said title suit. The learned court below has also found that on the other hand plaintiffs-opposite parties have produced three registered sale deeds dated 13.07.1993 executed and registered by the admitted owner. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite apparent that there was no prima facie merit in the claim of the defendant-petitioner either with respect to his title over the property or with respect to right and title of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. Furthermore, admittedly the defendant-petitioner was a tenant and had paid rent at the rate of Rs.900/- per month. The only question was whether the rent was paid to the plaintiffs. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court below has specifically - 5 - found that due to admission of the defendant-petitioner that he was earlier a tenant and paid rent at the rate of Rs.900/- to the landlord and the defendant not having been able to show his right or title by any piece of valid evidence, whereas the plaintiff having been able to show his purchase by registered deeds from the admitted owner, the learned court below was justified to hold Rs.900/- per month as the last paid rent. So far the arrears of rent is concerned, the learned court below was also justified in passing the impugned order directing the defendant-petitioner to pay arrears of rent for the period within three years prior to date of filing of the suit. In the facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional errors in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, since the impugned order of the learned court below has been challenged in this civil revision and further proceeding of the eviction suit had been stayed by this court by order dated 22.01.2007, the petitioner is directed to deposit entire arrears of rent as directed by the learned court below till the month of April, 2008 by 15th June, 2008 and thereafter go on paying future rent from May, 2008 by 15th of the next succeeding month. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)