Petitioner challenged an order directing rent deposit. Court held prior land status irrelevant between parties and dismissed the writ application.
The application was dismissed; the order dated 23.5.2009 was left uninterfered with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4592 of 2010
SARDAR AMARJEET SINGH @ SARDAR AMAR SINGH @ AMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE JAGAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLAMUNHARA GALI PARIL KOTHI, P.O. AND P.S. DEHRI, DISTRICTROHTAS.
… DEFENDANT….. PETITIONER.
Versus
MD.AHTESHAMUDDIN, SON OF LATE ABDUL QYUM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SADAR CHOWK, WARD NO. 26, P.O. AND P.S. DEHRI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS.
/tenant and for the respondent/landlord who has appeared suo motu.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated23.5.2009 of the 3rd Additional Munsif in Eviction Case No. 6 of 2008 directing him to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent under Section 15
of the B.B.C. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands in question are Khas Mahal lands. The father of the respondent defaulted in payments when certificate proceedings were directed against
him including cancellation of the lease and eviction.
The lands were then proposed to be settled in favour of one Sabhapati Singh, the petitioners pay rent to the wife of Sabhapati Singh.
Counsel for the respondent relies upon the
impugned order to submit that in the Municipal records the shop premises which earlier stood in the name of the father of the respondent, presently stands recorded in the name of the respondent.
The grounds sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner do not appear to have been pressed or raised before the Munsif as it finds no discussion in the impugned order. There is no pleading in the writ petition that points and issues raised had not been considered more particularly what has been presently urged.
If the Municipal records show that the petitioner as the landlord in occupation, whether the Khas Mahal lease subsists or not is not relevant at this stage between the petitioner and the respondent. The court finds no reason interfere with the order dated 23.5.2009 the application is dismissed.
Ibrar/-
( Navin Sinha, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's order directing the petitioner to deposit rent arrears.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sardar Amarjeet Singh
Md. Ahteshamuddin
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
