Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents.

The petitioner is the defendant/tenant in eviction suit filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs in which a petition under Section 15 of BBC Act was filed by the Plaintiffs-Respondent. The learned Sub Judge 1st, Patna, by the impugned order has directed the petitioner-defendant/tenant to deposit arrears and current rent in the bank as per the previous arrangement @ Rs. 11000/- per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned court below has not Patna High Court C.Misc. No.611 of 2017(2) dt.23-06-2022 taken into consideration the provision of Section 15(2) of the BBC Act inasmuch as the Provision of law specifically stipulates that if there is some dispute raised by the tenant, the court should direct the tenant to deposit the rent in the court and in that case no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount, and after deposit only the court will decide the dispute and make an order for payment of the same. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner has filed his rejoinder stating therein that in the year 2014, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant-petitioner and accepted a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by cash and on the basis of the same, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance in the year 2017 bearing Title Suit No. 56/2017. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned should be set aside.