Dismissed

Rupam Kumari v. Vinod Kumar Verma @ Neelu Verma

Patna HC23 Jan 2017C.Misc./97/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application challenging an order directing the petitioner to unlock premises. The Court noted the tenure of landlord and tenant was admitted and eviction suit was pending, so unlocking was rightly ordered. Civil Misc. Application No. 97 of 2017 disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Civil Misc. application No. 97 of 2017 dismissed; order dated 05.09.2016 upheld.

Rupam Kumari Vs Vinod Kumar Verma @ Neelu Verma — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.97 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Rupam Kumari, Daughter of Late Lal Prasad Yadav, Resident of Globe Star and Travels, Nirmala Market, Boring Canal Road, Near Indira Pant Bhawan, P.O.-L.B.S. Nagar, P.S.-S.K. Puri, District-Patna.

¶4

.... .... Appellant/s Versus Vinod Kumar Verma @ Neelu Verma .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶5

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER

¶6

2 23-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel Mr. Vishwanath Chaudhary for the petitioner.

¶7

Perused the impugned order dated 05.09.2016 passed by Sub-Judge V, Patna in Title Suit No. 5328/2014, whereby the application filed by the respondent for unlocking the suit premises has been allowed by the court below.

¶8

Admittedly, the petitioner has filed eviction suit under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for eviction of the tenant-respondent being Eviction Suit No. 144/2015. Therefore, the petitioner, herein, is admitting the fact that the respondent is tenant under her. The eviction suit is pending and no decree for eviction has been passed. Section 11 of the BBC Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or law to the contrary but subject to the provisions of

¶9

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.97 of 2017 (2) dt.23-01-2017

¶10

2/3

¶11

the Industrial Disputes Act and to those of Section 18, where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to be evicted therefrom except in execution of a decree passed by the court on one or more of the following grounds:

¶12

(a)…

¶13

(b)….. etc.,

¶14

Admitted fact in the present case is that still decree has not been passed. The tenant-respondent filed the suit being Title Suit No. 5328/2014 praying for declaration that he is the tenant of the petitioner who is defendant in the suit and prayed for restraining the present petitioner from forcefully dispossessing the respondent from the suit premises. Thereafter, he filed the application praying for direction to the present petitioner to open the lock which has been put by the petitioner in the suit premises during the pendency of the suit.

¶15

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case that eviction suit is still pending and the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between the parties. No decree for eviction has been passed and the petitioner has put the lock during the pendency of either the eviction suit or the present suit filed by the tenant praying for injunction also. The court below has rightly directed the present petitioner to open the lock put by her without

¶16

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.97 of 2017 (2) dt.23-01-2017

¶17

3/3

¶18

there being any authority of law. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.09.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 5328/2014. Accordingly, this Civil Misc. application is dismissed.

¶19

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)

¶20

Rakhi

¶21

Rupam Kumari v. Vinod Kumar Verma @ Neelu Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupam Kumari v. Vinod Kumar Verma @ Neelu Verma

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

Dasai Mahto Vs Parmeshwar Mahto and Ors.

Munna Sah and Ors. Vs Ramavati Devi and Ors.

Bimla Devi Vs Anil Pd. Singh and Ors.

Akhileshwar Singh @ Akhileshwar Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Babban Prasad Sharma Vs Ravi Ranjan and Ors.

Brajesh Singh Vs Ramakant Sharma and Ors.