HASSAN SHAHEEN Vs. SYED AHMAD FAISAL SHERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.9.2006 passed by Sri Chandra Shekhar Pradhan, learned Sub Judge VI, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 33 of 1998 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for eviction.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendants-respondents on the ground of default and also prayed for recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs.7000/- from the month of January 1997 total being Rs.1,47,000/-. According to the plaintiff he is the owner of the suit premises i.e. Shop No. 5. THE defendants- appellants were inducted as tenant on rent of Rs.7000/- per month. THE tenancy started from 1.12.1994 for 11 months. According to the terms of the lease it was extended and, thereafter the defendants paid rent irregularly. THEy stopped payment of rent from the month January 1997 @ Rs.7000/-. THErefore, the suit was filed for eviction of the defendants-appellants on the ground of default under Section 11 (1) (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. THE plaintiff-respondent also prayed for recovery of arrears of rent.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the eviction suit under the B.B.C. Act cannot be stayed on the ground that suit for specific performance of contract is pending. Moreover, the suit for specific performance has been filed by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of this eviction suit. There is no provision for staying the previous suit on the ground that subsequently another suit has been filed. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in this present suit for eviction is neither an issue directly and substantially involved in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff. If the appellants' suit for specific performance will be decreed then the appellants will get back the possession of the suit premises but at this stage when the agreement itself is in dispute the hearing of this appeal cannot been stayed. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs landlord had filed Civil Revision No. 1461 of 2005 against the order dated 1.7.2005. While issuing notice to the appellants this court stayed the operation of the order dated 1.7.2005 and directed the court below to proceed. Accordingly, the court below proceeded and the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 4.9.2006. When the suit was finally decided by the Court below this court while hearing Civil Revision No. 1461 of 2005 on 22.9.2005 dismissed the civil revision on the ground that the suit has been disposed of and first appeal is pending before this court. Since the civil revision was infructuous on the disposal of the suit itself there is no question of revival of the order dated 1st July 2005 arises. ON these grounds, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs.