Ashok Arora & Anr vs Chetan Kumar & Anr on 29 September, 2016

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Ashok Arora & Anr vs Chetan Kumar & Anr on 29 September, 2016

Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.764 of 2016
                 ======================================================
                 Ashok Arora & Anr
                                                             .... .... Appellant/s
                                               Versus
                 Chetan Kumar & Anr
                                                            .... .... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s  :   Mr. Abinash Kumar
                 For the Respondent/s   : Mr.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR
                 SAHOO
                 ORAL ORDER

2   29-09-2016

Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Abinash Kumar, for the petitioner.

Perused the impugned order dated 06.04.2016 passed by learned Sub Judge VIII, Patna in Title Eviction Suit No.4 of 2013.

It appears that the plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid eviction suit for eviction of the tenant under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as the 'BBC Act') on the ground of personal necessity and default. The petitioner is contesting the eviction suit. According to him, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the petitioner. The petitioner is tenant under the mother of the plaintiff respondents. The plaintiff respondent filed application under Section 15 of the BBC Act. By the impugned order, the Court below has directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as current rent.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.764 of 2016 (2) dt.29-09-2016

2/3

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under Section 15 sub Section 2 of the BBC Act, the Court below should have held that unless the person who is entitled to receive the rent is decided, it should have been kept in the deposit of the Court.

Admitted fact as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a tenant. Eviction suit has been filed on the ground of default also. According to the learned counsel, as defined under Section 2 Sub Section (h), the real owner of the property is not required to be the plaintiff in an eviction suit. The definition of landlord includes the person who for the time being receive or is entitled to receive the rent. In view of the above fact, there is no other landlord who is claiming rent, therefore, Section 15 sub Section 2 of BBC Act is not applicable.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the defence of the petitioner, it clearly appears that the petitioner's defence is not tenabale as he is a tenant residing in the suit premises. Therefore, he is liable to pay the rent to the landlord, i.e., plaintiffs during the pendency of the eviction suit.

In such view of the matter, the learned Court below has rightly directed the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction or that it Patna High Court C.Misc. No.764 of 2016 (2) dt.29-09-2016 3/3 has been passed in the manner not permitted by law.

Accordingly, this Civil Misc. application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/-

  U            T

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders