Ranjeet Kumar Shukla v. Govind Prasad Jain

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1118 of 2016 (2) dt.21-11-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1118 of 2016 ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Shukla .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Govind Prasad Jain .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 21-11-2016 Heard learned counsel, Mr. S.K. Thakur for the petitioner.

2.

Perused the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Sub-Judge, Junior Division,-II, Munger in C.I.S. (Eviction) Suit No. 01 of 2015, whereby the learned court below directed the defendant-tenant-petitioner to deposit Rs. 2500/- per month as monthly rent according to Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. 3.

The grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that he has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The brother of the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant. The petitioner never paid the rent to the plaintiff but the learned court below directed the petitioner to pay rent. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has already filed pre-litigation suit before the Lok Adalat for specific performance of contract against the brother of the plaintiff, which has been decreed on

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1118 of 2016 (2) dt.21-11-2016 14.05.2012 on compromise.

4.

From perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff clearly stated that the rent @ Rs. 2500/- to be paid from the month of July, 2014 after enhancement but the defendant has not paid the rent. In reply to this statement of the plaintiff, the defendant only denied that he agreed to pay the rent but he has not denied that he never paid rent @ Rs. 2500/- to the brother of the plaintiff. Nowhere either in the reply to the application under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act or in the written statement, it is pleaded by the defendant that in fact Rs. 2500/- is not the monthly rent fixed in the agreement. So far the compromise decree by Lok Adalat is concerned, it may be mentioned here that still today no sale deed has been executed in favour of the defendant. 5.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has considered these aspects of the matter and then passed very good reasoned order. Therefore, no case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is made out. Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. Brajesh/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U