Purusuttam Das Rajgaria vs Udai Kumar Rajgaria And Ors

I.A. No.7407 of 2018:

It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner that before going into the legality and propriety of the order,

appropriate order may be passed in the instant interlocutory application which has been filed for substitution of the sole petitioner who has died on

17.05.2018 by his legal heirs as per the details referred at paragraph-5 to the instant application.

Mr. A.K. Sahani as also Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr.Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents have not objected to the prayer made in

the interlocutory application.

In view thereof, the instant interlocutory application is allowed, accordingly stands disposed of.

Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the petitioner.

W.P.(C) No.4319 of 2013:

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case at length by assailing the order dated 02.07.2013 passed in Title

Eviction Suit No.03 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control

Act, 1982 has been allowed by directing the petitioner to make payment of the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1908/-.

Subsequent to the said order, since the same has not been complied with, the order has been passed for strucking of the defence which has also been

challenged by way of interlocutory application, the same has been allowed.

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of any prima facie finding with respect to the existence of the

landlord tenant relationship, there cannot be an order under Section 15 of the Act, 1982.

Mr. A.K. Sahani as also Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr.Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the contention as

has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to prima facie finding of the landlord tenant relationship before passing the

order under Section 15 of the Act, 1982, the same is not required to be there since that is by way of an interim order in a case where the rent is not

being paid by the tenant subject to the outcome of the eviction suit wherein the tenant will get the opportunity to prove about non-existence of the

relationship of landlord and tenant and therefore, even if the said order has been passed, no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner.

Further assertion has been made by drawing attention of this Court to the statement made at paragraph-10 to the plaint wherein it has been stated that

the petitioner will pay the current rent at the prevalent market rate to the receiver which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has not

been disputed in the written statement rather the same has been said to be the matter of record as would appear from the statement made at

paragraph-19 to the written statement.

At this juncture, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that let the matter be posted under the heading for

‘Orders’ so that he may be able to substantiate his argument by placing reliance upon certain judgments.

As prayed for by him, list this case on 24.01.2020 under the heading for ‘Orders’.