LAKHAN SAHU Vs. SHRI MADNESHWAR NATH DATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the defendant and it arises out of an order passed by the trial Court under Section 11-A of the Bihar Act, III of 1947. The plaintiff has instituted the suit in question for evicting the defendant on the allegation that the defendant was the tenant of the house belonging to the plaintiff and he has not paid rent from the month of July, 1965 to December, 1965, amounting to Rs. 138/-. It was alleged that the defendant had not paid rent thereafter also. In substance the defence case was that the plaintiff had no title to the disputed house and that the defendant had instituted an earlier suit claiming specific performance of a contract of sale of the house to the defendant. That suit had been instituted against certain defendants and the plaintiff of the present suit was not a party to that suit originally. The present plaintiff has, however been added as a co-defendant in that suit at his own instance. The defence case further, appears to be that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. It appears that in the earlier title suit filed by the present defendant an order of stay of the present suit had been passed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of the order of stay, the trial Court in the present suit should not have passed any order under Section 11-A. But, it is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order under revision that it had been conceded by both the parties that even if further proceedings of the suit had been stayed, interlocutory orders could be passed in this suit. In view of that concession, the question under Section 11-A of the Act has been gone into and the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, there is no validity in the argument that no order could have been passed under Section 11-A. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has urged that the plaintiff may not be allowed to withdraw the rents deposited by the defendant. This question is a premature one and I have no doubt that if the plaintiff applies to the Court below for withdrawal of the moneys deposited, an appropriate order will be passed by the Court below under Section 11-A of the Act. There does not appear to be any merit in the civil revision and it is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. The order of stay is vacated.