MANGAL PD. YADAV Vs. KESHVADEO TULSHIAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the defendant and it is directed against an order passed by the trial court under section 11A of Bihar Act III of 1947. The defendant has been ordered to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 21 /- per month for the period 16th Asarh 2023 Sambat to 13th Asarh 2023 Sambat (sic) and he has been asked to deposit arrears of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 40.87 paise for the period 1st of July, 1966 upto the date of the order, minus an amount of Rs. 147/- said to have been sent by the defendant by money order dated the 16th Dec., 1966. The increase in the rent from Rs. 21.00 per month to Rs 40.87 paise per month is said to be due to an order passed by the appropriate authority Increasing the fair rent to that amount, effective from the 1st July, 1966. The original order increasing fair rent had been passed on the 5th Sept., 1966 and this was affirmed on appeal. It is said that the defendant has filed Title Suit No 86 of 1967 to set aside the increase in the valuation of the holding made by the Municipality, for which increase fair rent has also been enhanced.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the last rent having beep paid at the rate of Rs. 21.00 per month, the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to order that rent from the 1st of July, 1966 should be deposited at the rate of Rs. 40.87 paise per month. There is no validity in this argument, as admittedly, fair rent was fixed at Rs. 40.87 paise per month, effective from the 1st July, 1966. Whatever may be the result of the title suit instituted by the defendant, at present fair rent of the house must be taken to be Rs. 40.87 paise permopth. Hence, there was no illegality in the order passed, asking the defendant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 40.87 paise per month from the 1st July, 1966. It is then urged by the learned counsel that as the defendants title suit is still pending, the arrears of rent should have been reduced by an amount of Rs. 700.00 which the defendant is said to have paid to the plaintiffs in two instalments in Jan. and Oct., 1967. But, upon the materials on record, the learned Munsif has held that for the purposes of the proceeding under section 11 A, the materials were not sufficient for accepting the defendant's contention that he had paid Rs. 700.00 as rent to the plaintiffs and it is not possible to re-open this matter in this civil Revision. Whether the defendant will succeed on this point in the suit or not cannot be finally determined at this stage. But there was no illegality in the order by witch the defendant was asked to deposit, as stated above, without giving him credit for Rs. 700.00 at this stage.

(3.) Both the points raised by the learned council fail and the application is dismissed. It appears that the order of the learned Munsif under revision was not complied with, and as this civil revision fails, the trial court must now strike off the defence, within the meaning of section 11 A of the Act. For this reason, I would order that the parties will bear their own costs of this court. Appeal dismissed.