Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 477 (PAT)

Ram Bali Prasad v. Pradeep Kumar Mandal

2004-04-27

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff who is the sole plaintiff in Title Eviction Suit No. 4/97 has challenged the order of the learned Munsif Katihar, dated 21.9.2000 by which his petition under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) has been rejected. In the said suit eviction has been sought on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the defendant since July, 1996. 3. In the instant case the relationship of land-lord and tenant as also the rate of rent @ Rs.180/- per month has been admitted. However, the parties are in dispute on two grounds. Firstly, the plaintiff claims that the defendant has not paid rent since July, 1996 whereas the defendant claims that he had regularly paid rent till June, 1998 but without receipts. Secondly, the defendant also claims that the plaintiff is not the sole owner/land-lord of the suit premises and hence his petition under Section 15 of the Act was not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the learned court below has rejected his petition under Section 15 of the Act only on the ground that he is one of the three co-owners and hence his petition under Section 15 of the Act was not maintainable. According to him, the said conjecture and assumption of the learned court below was against the specific provision of law and judicial pronouncements. He also contended that the learned court below has not at all considered the materials on record which clearly proved his case. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party vehemently opposed the said contention stating that the learned court below has passed the impugned order after full consideration of all the aspects involved in the case. He also stated that the defendant had paid rent to the land-lords uptil June, 1998 but without receipts and in that connection he had also referred to Paragraph9 of the written statement in which the defendant claimed that in July, 1998, he had given cloth worth Rs. 5,000/- on credit to one of the sons of the plaintiff. 6. He also stated that the defendant had paid rent to the land-lords uptil June, 1998 but without receipts and in that connection he had also referred to Paragraph9 of the written statement in which the defendant claimed that in July, 1998, he had given cloth worth Rs. 5,000/- on credit to one of the sons of the plaintiff. 6. After considering the respective claims of the parties and the materials on record, I find that the learned court below has erred in law in holding that since the plaintiff was one of the co-owners, his petition under Section 15 of the Act was not maintainable without impleading the other co-owners. The learned court below has completely ignored the receipts produced by the plaintiff which showed that the name of plaintiff was clearly mentioned in the receipts as proprietor and on his behalf his son has received the rent and the defendant had also signed on those receipts. Hence, the plaintiff is clearly the land-lord of the defendant, who is bound to pay rent to the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiffs petition under Section 15 of the Act was maintainable under the law. So far the plaintiffs claim of the rent not being paid since July, 1996 and the contention of the defendant that he had paid rent upto June, 1998, the learned court below pletely ignored the said aspect of the matters. 7. in the aforesaid circumstances, i hereby set aside the impugned order of the learned court below and direct the defendant-opposite party to deposit the current rent @ Rs. 180/- per month starting from April, 2004, by the 15th of the next following month. I also direct the defendantopposite party to deposit the arrears of rent for the period January, 2001 till March, 2004, within 15 days from the date of this order. Both the current rent and the arrears of rent will be deposited by the defendantopposite party in the court below and the plaintiff-petitioner will be entitled to withdraw the same. So far the question of arrears of rent for the period prior to January, 2001 is concerned, the matter is remanded to the learned court below to consider the rival claims of the parties and the materials on record and to ascertain what amount is due after the payments, if made, by the defendant-opposite party as claimed by him. So far the question of arrears of rent for the period prior to January, 2001 is concerned, the matter is remanded to the learned court below to consider the rival claims of the parties and the materials on record and to ascertain what amount is due after the payments, if made, by the defendant-opposite party as claimed by him. The learned court below shall decide this matter within two months after giving opportunity to both the parties to make submissions and produce relevant evidence under the provision of Section 15 of the Act. 8. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this civil revision application is allowed.