JAGANATH PRASAD Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22/8/2003 purported to have been passed under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1982 (in short the said Act) in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1994 by which the Munsif, Chaibasa directed the defendant -petitioner to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 20/ - with a further direction that the amount of rent shall not be withdrawn by the plaintiff. 2003(2) JLJR 17, referred the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the correctness of the said decision.

(2.) IN Imteyaz Ahmad's case (supra) a Bench of this court held that if an application under Section 15 of the said Act is filed, the correct procedure would be that the court should tentatively examine the materials available and determine whether denial of relationship of landlord and tenant is bona fide or a mere pretence. The court is required to make a summary investigation and record a prima facie finding regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant before directing the defendant to deposit the rent. The court, in Imteyaz Ahmad's case, observed as under:

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, in the case in hand, is of the view that such inquiry and finding is not necessary in all cases. The question raised by the learned Single Judge, as to what is the procedure to be adopted by the court before passing an order under section. 15 of the said Act, has been fully discussed and decided by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Mahabir Ram v. Shiva Shankar Prasad and Ors. AIR1968 Pat 415 . The Full Bench, considering the scope of Section 15 of the Act (section 11A of 1947 Act), observed: