TRIPURENDRA PANDEY Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision by the defendant tenant is directed against order dated 11.3.97 passed by the Munsif, Saharsa, in Title Suit No. 75 of 1992, directing the petitioner to deposit rent under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short, the Act).

(2.) SECTION 15 of the said Act provides that on application by the landlord at any stage of the suit, the court may direct the tenant to deposit arrears of rent subject to law of limitation, as well as month to month rent at a rate at which it was last has challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was submitted that the order of the court below asking the petitioner to deposit rent treating him as a tenant is therefore not correct.

(3.) IT is well settled that at the stage of making an order under Section 15 of the Act, the court is merely required to see prima facie case as to relationship of landlord and tenant. Even at the stage of trial the defence of title, as may be set up by the defendant, ordinarily lies outside the scope of the eviction suit. The nature of the suit, as is well known is determined by the plaintiff's case and not by the defendant's case. Therefore, simply because the defendant has set up claim of title in himself the court is not required to adjudicate upon the dispute. The court is required to see whether the plea is bonafide or mere pretence. If the court find that complicated questions of title are involved, surely, it is open to it to convert the suit in a regular suit and decide the question of title.