Dismissed

Arun Kumar Sah v. Shri Gopal Kumar

Patna HC5 Oct 2012CWJC/5511/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge oral order dismissing four connected writ petitions challenging eviction suit orders requiring monthly rent deposits. The Court held that the trial court power to order rent deposits under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, is within jurisdiction and cannot be interfered with on the ground of disputed title.

What did the court decide?

The writ applications are accordingly dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioners.

Arun Kumar Sah Vs Shri Gopal Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4928 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Sah @ Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar, resident of villageP.O. and P.S. Karja, Munsifi Muzaffarpur West, District-Muzaffarpur

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Respondent/s .... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Respondent/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

Shri Gopal Kumar, son of Ram Janam Rai, resident of village-Daulatpur, P.O. and P.S. Hajipur, District-Vaishali

¶6

======================================================

¶7

with

¶8

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5022 of 2012

¶9

====================================================== Jugal Kishore Sah, son of Nahhaki Sah resident of village, P.O. and P.S. Karja, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Shri Gopal Kumar, son of Ram Janam Rai, resident of village-Daulatpur, P.O. and P.S. Hajipur, District-Vaishali

¶10

======================================================

¶11

with

¶12

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5023 of 2012

¶13

====================================================== Raj Kishore Bhagat son of Shri Asarfi Bhagat resident of village- P.O. and P.S. Karja District Muzaffarpur

¶14

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶15

Versus

¶16

Shri Gopal Kumar, son of Ram Janam Rai, resident of village-Daulatpur, P.O. and P.S. Hajipur, District-Vaishali.... .... Respondent/s

¶17

======================================================

¶18

with

¶19

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5511 of 2012

¶20

====================================================== Arun Kumar Sah son of Shri Nagendra Sah, resident of village, P.O. & P.S. Karja, District Muzaffarpur

¶21

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶22

Versus

¶23

Shri Gopal Kumar, son of Ram Janam Rai, resident of village-Daulatpur, P.O. and P.S. Hajipur, District-Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s

¶24

======================================================

¶25

Appearance : (In CWJC No.4928 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh, Adv. (In CWJC No.5022 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh, Adv. (In CWJC No.5023 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh, Adv.

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.4928 of 2012 (3) dt.05-10-2012

¶27

2 / 2

¶28

(In CWJC No.5511 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh, Adv.

¶29

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶30

3 05-10-2012

¶31

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioners in all these applications have questioned the order passed by the learned trial Court in the respective eviction suit proceedings whereby the defendants-petitioners have been directed by the trial Court to deposit the arrears of rent month by month in the Court in exercise of power vested under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

¶33

The only issue that is being raised by Mr. Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that as the title of the landlord itself is in question in the proceedings hence the order is not sustainable.

¶34

Section 15 of the Act empowers the Court below to make any order as regarding the payment of the rent at any stage of the suit, on an application made by the landlord in this regard and any violation on the part of the tenant to carry out the orders would entail the ‘striking of’ of his defence as also he would stand debarred from examining the landlord witnesses. The power exercised by the learned Court below is well within the jurisdiction vested under the provisions of the Act and requires no interference.

¶35

These writ applications are accordingly dismissed.

¶36

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶37

Bibhash/-

Arun Kumar Sah v. Shri Gopal Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Sah v. Shri Gopal Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srimati Tetri Devi Vs Most. Ainasiya Devi and Ors.

Ramjee Upadhyay and Ors. Vs Ravi Nandan Upadhyay and Ors.

Most. Vidhyawati Devi and Anr. Vs Ost. Sushila Devi

Umapati Kuer and Anr. Vs Subhash Chaubey and Ors.

Nirmala Agrawal and Ors. Vs Rajeev Kumar Agrawal and Ors.

Prakash @ Prakash Pd. Narayan Sinha Vs Smt. Asha Mishra and Anr.