NAYEEMA KHATOON AND ORS. Vs. MAMTA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel who was assisted by Mr. Anisur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE present proceeding was fixed for ex - parte hearing against the sole respondent in view of the fact that despite valid service of notice, the sole respondent has preferred not to appear. Accordingly, by order dated 5.8.2015 the case was fixed for ex -parte hearing against the sole respondent. Today again, there is non appearance on behalf of the sole respondent.

(3.) THE plaintiff/petitioner's case is that being owner and title holder of the suit premises, which is holding No. 55 old/146 new, Circle No. 23, Ward No. 15 old/32 new, Municipal Survey Plot No. 270, Tauzi No. 525, Sheet No. 67 situated at Bihari Sao Lane, Muradpur, Pirbahore, Banikipur, Patna, on the ground of non -payment of rent by the petitioner since March, 2004 filed a Title Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2006. Since even during the pendency of the suit monthly rent was not being paid by the tenant, on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner a petition was filed on 7.3.2008 under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. In the said petition the defendant/respondent also filed rejoinder. The defendant/respondent raised dispute on the point of relationship of landlord and tenant. It was objected that the plaintiff/petitioner was not the landlord, rather for some period, in the capacity of Mutawalli of Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, the petitioner had collected Najrana forcefully from the father -in -law of the defendant/respondent. The learned court below on the basis of objection raised by the defendant regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as on the ground that a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. filed by the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board for adding as party in the suit was still pending, by order dated 24.5.2010 rejected the petition which was filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. Aggrieved with the order impugned the original plaintiff namely Sheikh Md. Gulam Bari @ Sk. Md. Gulam Bari approached this court by filing the present writ petition. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, due to demise of the sole petitioner, substitution petition was subsequently filed which was allowed by order dated 22.5.2015 and as such, legal heirs of the sole petitioner have been substituted in place of deceased petitioner.