Dismissed

Lalta Mistri v. Virendra Kumar Sah

Patna HC3 Oct 2016C.Misc./822/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Title Eviction Suit No.01 of 2015, the Munsif Danapur directed the defendant-appellant to deposit monthly rent under Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. The High Court held the lower court had jurisdiction since the landlord proved property allotment by partition, and the appellant's failure to produce receipts did not invalidate the order.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; eviction order upholding deposit of rent stands confirmed.

Lalta Mistri Vs Virendra Kumar Sah — Partition | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

	IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.822 of 2016 ======================================================
	Lalta Mistri .... .... Appellant/s Versus Virendra Kumar Sah .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================
	Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.
	====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
2	03-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
	Perused the impugned order dated 21.05.2016 passed
	by learned Munsif, Danapur, Patna in Title Eviction Suit No.01 of
	2015 whereby the court below directed the defendant-petitioner to
	deposit rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month under Section 15
	of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act.

¶2

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is regularly paying rent to the elder brother of the plaintiff. Secondly the learned counsel submitted that the elder brother of the plaintiff filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being added as party but the learned court below without giving opportunity to him has rejected the intervention application. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not a defaulter and is regularly paying rent, therefore, the court below could not have directed the petitioner to deposit

¶3

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.822 of 2016 (2) dt.03-10-2016

¶4

¶5

the rent.

¶6

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that only defence of the petitioner is that he was paying rent but has not produced any rent receipt in the court below. The plaintifflandlord has filed some documentary evidences in the court below. The court below on the basis of the said documentary evidences clearly recorded that in partition, property has been allotted in favour of the plaintiff. In such circumstances when the defendantpetitioner is contesting the eviction suit, the court below has the jurisdiction to pass order under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. Therefore, the order passed by the court below cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or it has been passed in the manner not permitted by law.

¶7

Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

¶8

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)

¶9

Harish/-

¶10

Lalta Mistri v. Virendra Kumar Sah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalta Mistri v. Virendra Kumar Sah

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

Bharat Kumar Vs Ram Lakhan Bind and Ors.

Kalawati Devi and Ors. Vs American Prasad

Sultan Mian Vs Ravindra Choubey and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Sunil Kumar and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Dugar Vs Udyot Kumar Kothari and Ors.

Uday Chandra Bhaskar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.