IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10974 of 2011 Ram Dayal Sah @ Ram Dayal Saha Late Ram Roop Sah R/O Mohalla- Ruhelaganj, P.S. L.N.M.U. Campus, P.O. Lalbagh, Distt. Darbhanga Proprietors M/S Dayal Pustak Bhandar Situated In Mohlla Katki Bazar, Town Chowk, Town P.S. +P.O. Lalbhagh, Distt. Darbhanga. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus Shri Bimal Chandra Late Dhrub Chandra Lal R/O Vill. Katki Bazar, Town Chowk, Town P.S. Distt. Darbhanga. . . . . . Respondent. ----------- 3/ 05.09.2011 The petitioner, who is defendant in Eviction Suit no.05 of 2007 has come against the order dated 04.06.2011 passed by Sub-Judge-Ist, Darbhanga, whereby he has been directed to deposit current rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month along with arrear of rent of Rs.1,60,000/- within one month. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he took house of the plaintiff on rent bearing holding no. 471, revisional survey plot no. 506 in Mohalla Katki Bazar town chowk, Darbhanga, in 1994 on monthly rental of Rs.1,000/- per month with a security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, for which no receipt was granted. The petitioner was running business of selling of books in the name and style of M/s Dayal Pushtak Bhandar. The petitioner suffered loss in the year 2007, as such requested the plaintiff / respondent to adjust the rental dues against the security amount. The plaintiff/respondent refused the request and observed that if petitioner wants to continue he would have to enhance the rental amount to Rs.2,000/- per month. The petitioner had no alternative but to enhance the rental to Rs.2000/- per month from April 2007. The petitioner submits that in spite of aforesaid agreement the plaintiff filed Eviction Suit no. 05 of 2007, which 2 was decreed ex parte. On coming to know of the same petitioner filed Misc. Case no.17 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside ex parte decree date 15.05.2008 which was allowed on 29.07.2010. 3. The petitioner submits that on 08.06.2008 the plaintiff broke the lock of the premises and removed his books from the shop. The petitioner made written complaint to the police. On intervention of the police, a compromise was arrived whereby petitioner agreed to vacate half portion and would continue only on remaining half portion, as tenant. The dispute regarding fixation of rent would be decided on 15.06.2008. The key of the premises was given to the plaintiff for raising boundary wall for dividing the premises in two half’s. It is relevant to state here that copy of petition of petitioner dated 08.06.2008 to police and compromise petition dated 09.06.2008 agreeing to vacate half of rented premises were exhibited in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2008 as Ext.-X and X/1. 4. The plaintiff / respondent filed a petition for payment of arrears of rent from 01.04.2004 to 30.11.2010 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, which would come to Rs.1,60,00/-. The plaintiff also prayed for deposit of current rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. On the other hand, petitioner submits that plaintiff/respondent would be entitled to Rs.2,000/- per month only from 01.04.2007 and not from 01.04.2004. He submits that rent from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2007 would be only Rs.1,000/- per month. The petitioner in view of his own submission and 3 agreement dated 15.06.2008 continued as tenant only in respect of ½ portions and not the entire portion. Thus even at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month he would be liable to pay monthly rental of Rs.1,000/- with effect from 09.06.2008 onwards. As per the agreement, key was handed over to the plaintiff by the police to divide the rental premises in two halves and only half of the tenanted portion is to be occupied by the petitioner/defendant. 5. On the contrary as per petitioner, the plaintiff did not hand over even half of the premises to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner submits that he ought not be saddled with any rental burden with effect from 09.06.2008 onwards. The plaintiff / respondent on the other hand contends that the petitioner would be liable to pay monthly rental of Rs.2,000/- for entire premises. The plaintiff / respondent submits that the defendant / petitioner would be liable to pay rent at the rate it was last paid. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision in the case of N.M. Verma Vs. Upendra Narain Singh, reported in A.I.R. 1978 Pat. 101. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. It is not in dispute that petitioner was a tenant of respondent. There is dispute whether the petitioner was paying monthly rental of Rs.2,000/- per month prior to 01.04.2007 or not. The trial court prima facie found that the petitioner would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from 01.04.2004 for purpose of Section 15 of the Bihar Building 4 (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. The trial court has prima facie found that rental due would be Rs.2000/- per month with effect from 01.04.2004, so I need not enter into jugglery of facts at this stage. The petitioner would be liable to pay Rs.2000/- per month with effect from 01.04.2004. 7. The next contention of the petitioner is that on account of intervention, he agreed and parted with his claim to half of the suit premise on 09.06.2008. The key was handed over to the plaintiff by the police to raise boundary so that the suit premises can be divided in two half’s. According to the defendant / petitioner, the plaintiff locked the premises and even did not hand over remaining half of the tenanted portion to him. The petitioner in support of his submissions has exhibited agreement as Ext-X/1 in the Misc. case no. 17 of 2008 filed under Order IX Rule 13. The petitioner is claiming tenancy to half portion of premises from 09.06.2008. It does not appear from the order of the trial court whether the plaintiff / respondent has taken a categorical stand that the whole premises on the day is in possession of the petitioner. This much stands admitted by the petitioner treated that he is tenant of half of the premises since 09.06.2008. As such I hold that the petitioner would be liable to make payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month from 01.04.2004 up to 08.06.2008 only. The arrears of rent from 09.06.2008 onwards would be half of Rs.2000/- i.e. Rs.1000/- per month, as petitioner has admittedly parted with his claim to the other half of the tenanted premises as per Ext. X/1 5 in Misc. Case No.17 of 2008. I reject the contention of the petitioner / tenant that he would not be liable to make any payment towards rent, as plaintiff / respondent had not handed over even half of the premises, as adjudication of same would require evidence which would be only possible when parties adduce evidence. 8. With the aforesaid modification in the order dated 04.06.2011 of trial court, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)