Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2034 (JHR)

Parwati Devi v. Sita Ram Mehta

2018-09-10

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner who is defendant in Eviction Suit No. 12 of 2008 is aggrieved of order dated 13.03.2012 by which application under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has been allowed. 2. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the application under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 cannot be allowed on mere assertion of the plaintiffs that the defendant-tenant has failed to pay rent. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the plaintiffs have failed to produce prima-facie evidence on default of payment of rent by the tenant, the trial Judge has failed to consider the effect of the agreement between the parties under which the plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit premises for which the defendant-tenant has paid Rs. 1 Lac as advance. 4. Eviction Suit No. 12 of 2008 has been instituted on the ground of default in payment of rent from 20.07.2008. The defendant was inducted on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- as a tenant since January, 2003. The plaintiffs have asserted that they are the landlords and the defendant is a tenant under them. In the written statement the defendant has disputed that she is a defaulter. 5. Section 2(f) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 defines landlord to include the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building whether on his own account or on behalf of the another, or own account or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and Others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. It is not denied that the plaintiffs are landlords and thus they are entitled to receive rent. The petitioner does not dispute that she is a tenant and while so, she is under a duty to pay monthly rent to her landlords. On a plea that the plaintiffs must produce some evidence on non-payment of rent, application under Section 15 cannot be refused. At this stage, reverse burden of proof cannot be shifted on the plaintiffs. The petitioner does not dispute that she is a tenant and while so, she is under a duty to pay monthly rent to her landlords. On a plea that the plaintiffs must produce some evidence on non-payment of rent, application under Section 15 cannot be refused. At this stage, reverse burden of proof cannot be shifted on the plaintiffs. It is for the defendant-tenant to prima-facie lead evidence that yes she has been paying rent regularly to her landlord or the rent in advance has been paid to the landlord. Admittedly, the alleged payment of Rs. 1 Lac by the defendant to the plaintiffs is not the amount of rent paid in advance; this is a part payment for purchase of the suit premises as allegedly agreed by the plaintiffs. Here again it needs to be recorded that the defendant has not instituted a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement between the parties or for recovery of the aforesaid amount from the plaintiffs. Moreover, payment of Rs. 1 Lac to the plaintiffs has been disputed by them; the defendant has also not produced any evidence on payment of Rs. 1 Lac to the plaintiffs. 6. In the aforesaid facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.03.2012 the writ petition is dismissed. 7. Interim order dated 15.06.2012 stands vacated. The petitioner shall comply with the direction of the trial court, within a period of 6 weeks.