Mohan Mistri v. Manjar Hasnain And ORS

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.3 of 2017 (2) dt.16-01-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.3 of 2017 ====================================================== Mohan Mistri .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Manjar Hasnain & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha Mr. Krishna Murari Rawt For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 16-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha for the petitioner.

Perused the impugned order dated 25.05.2016 and 03.08.2016 passed by Munsif, Ara in Eviction Case No.9 of 1991 whereby the learned Court below rejected two applications filed by the petitioner. The first application, filed by the defendantpetitioner, was for converting the eviction suit to regular title suit and the subsequent application was filed for deciding the question about maintainability of the eviction suit on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant.

At the time of hearing of this civil miscellaneous application, the learned counsel, Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha for the petitioner submitted that in application under Section 15 B.B.C. Act, filed by the plaintiff-respondents, an order has already been

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.3 of 2017 (2) dt.16-01-2017 passed by the Court below to the effect that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, there is no question of directing the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent arises and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the suit should have been converted to regular title suit and/or the Court below should have decided the question of maintainability of the eviction suit in view of the aforesaid finding. So far the finding recorded in a proceeding under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act is concerned, it is an interlocutory matter and the same shall not operate as resjudicata in the final decision of the suit. So far the prayer for deciding the preliminary issue is concerned, that is the main issue which is to be decided finally in the suit on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by the parties.

Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction and thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T