Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.