SHAMIM ARA NAZ Vs. MOHD QUAMRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 22-9-1995 passed by learned Munsif, Patna City, in Title Eviction Suit No. 28 of 1992 whereby and whereunder learned Munsif rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for a direction to the defendant-opposite party for payment of arrears of rent from the date of initiation of the suit. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for a decree of eviction of the defendant from the building premises which is the subject matter of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff's case inter alia, was that the building premises originally belonged to Mr. Sonny Suleman Afzal and the defendant-opposite party was a tenant in respect of the said building under him on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The plaintiff purchased the building from Mr. Sonny Suleman Afzal by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 12-5-1989 and came in possession of the same as owner thereof. The plaintiff's case was that the building premises was purchased by them for their own residential purposes and, therefore, they called upon the defendant-opposite party to vacate part of the building premises which was in their occupation as a tenant. It is further alleged that the defendant was apprised about the purchase of the property by the plaintiff and he was called upon to pay arrears of rent and vacate the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Section 15 of the said Act praying for a direction to the defendant-opposite party to deposit the arrears of rent and also current rent as provided and the said application was contested by the defendant by filing re-joinder. The learned Court below by the impugned order dated 22-9-1995 rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for depositing of rent.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the order passed by the learned Court below as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that when the Court below has come to a finding that the plaintiff has established prima facie title over the suit premises than there was no reason for rejecting the application of the plaintiff.