1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1151 of 2009 ----------- Pappu Khan, son of late Nasir Khan (Tyre Shop) at Purani G.T. Road, Opposite Sinha Complex, At and P.O. Dehri-on-sone, District Rohtas, Presently at Mohalla Islam Gunj, P.O. and P.S. Dehri on Sone, District Rohtas. …Defendant-Petitioner versus Ainuddin Khan, son of late Kamruddin Khan, resident of Purani Dak Banglow, Mohalla Idgah, At and P.O. Dehri-on-Sone, District Rohtas. …Plaintiff-Opposite Party ------- For the Petitioner : M/s Shri Prakash Srivastava and Nirbhay Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Opp. Party : None. ------- 03/ 17.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 18.04.2009, by which learned Additional Munsif-I, Sasaram allowed the application of the sole plaintiff-opposite party under the provision of section 15 of the Bihar Building ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity), filed in Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2007. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party for eviction of the sole defendant-petitioner from the suit premises, which is a shop room on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff filed an application dated 07.05.2008 under the provision of section 15 of the Act for directing the defendant to 2 pay arrears of rent and also to pay current rent at the rate of Rs.350.00 per month to the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit. A rejoinder dated 27.06.2008 to the said application was filed by the defendant in the said suit. The said application has been allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 18.04.2009, against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned court below stating that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit premises rather the defendant himself is one of the applicants for settlement of the suit premises, which is Khas Mahal, from the authority concerned. It is further stated that neither any prima- facie finding of landlord and tenant nor the amount of last paid rent had been considered by the learned court below while deciding the said matter. 6. However, a plain reading of the plaint produced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the written statement, which is Annexure 1 to this civil revision, clearly shows that in paragraph no.4 of the plaint, the plaintiff had specifically claimed that the defendant was his tenant and was paying rent at the rate of Rs.350.00 per month. It has also been subsequently stated that the defendant had stopped payment of rent. However, from a perusal of the written statement of the defendant, it is quite apparent that the aforesaid statement made in paragraph no.4 of the plaint has not been denied even 3 impliedly in any paragraph of the written statement. In the said circumstances, when the pleadings of the plaintiff with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant and rate of rent have not been denied by the defendant, there was no occasion for the learned court below to take a different view. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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. 7. However, due to the pendency of this civil revision, the time granted by the learned court below for payment of arrears of rent to the plaintiff is extended and the defendant is directed to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.6,650.00 along with the rents of May, June, July, August, September and October 2009 to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.350.00 per month by 15th of December, 2009 and will go on paying monthly rent for the month of November,2009 onwards at the same rate by 15th of subsequent month. If the said payments are made by the defendant-petitioner, it would be deemed to be compliance of order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the learned court below and would not result in striking of the defence of the defendant qua tenant. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. P