Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 237 (PAT)

Uday Bhan Singh v. Ram Janki

2008-02-05

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by the applicant-petitioner against order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Saran at Chapra, rejecting Misc. Case No. 48 of 2006 filed by him for transfer of Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2005 filed by the opposite parties pending in the Court of Munsif-I, Chapra, to the court of the Subordinate Judge-I, Chapra, where Title Suit No. 95 of 2006 filed by the petitioner was pending. 3. The fact of the case is that Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2005 was filed by the opposite parties for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity of the opposite parties with respect to the suit premises and default in payment of rent by the petitioner and also for rent and damages. 4. The said suit was filed and was pending before the learned Munsif-I, Chapra, as per his pecuniary jurisdiction. In the said eviction suit, notices were sent to the petitioner, whereafter, he appeared and filed his written statement raising counter claim and, thereafter, he filed Title Suit No. 95 of 2006 for realization of amount spent by him for the renovation of the premises. The said title suit was pending before the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chapra. 5. During the pendency of the aforesaid two cases, the petitioner, who was defendant in the eviction suit and plaintiff in the said title suit filed a petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra for transferring the eviction suit to the Court of the Subordinate Judge-I so that it may be heard alongwith the said title suit. The said case was numbered as Misc. Case No. 48 of 2006, which was rejected by the impugned order by the learned District Judge, Saran. 6. The said case was numbered as Misc. Case No. 48 of 2006, which was rejected by the impugned order by the learned District Judge, Saran. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below has rejected the aforesaid case of the petitioner only on the assumption that the suit filed by the opposite parties was a suit for eviction, whereas, the title suit was filed for realization of money but it failed to appreciate that the eviction suit was composite in nature seeking another remedy of realization of rent, which cannot be allowed as more than the said amount, has been spent by the petitioner in the renovation of the premises, which has to be realized from the opposite parties. 7. From the averments of the parties and the materials on record, including the impugned order, it appears that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. It also transpires that the main relief of the opposite parties in the eviction suit was for the eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. An ancillary relief for realization of rent is also claimed by the opposite parties, but that fact would not take away the nature of the suit, which remains an eviction suit. The title suit was subsequently filed by the petitioner only for realization of the amount spent by him in connection with the repairs and maintenance of the suit premises and hence the result of the eviction suit is not going to affect the title suit. In the said circumstances, the eviction suit would be unnecessarily delayed if it is made analogous to the said title suit, which would render the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 ineffective. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, thus, this Civil Revision is dismissed.