Ram Shankar Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case the petitioner who is tenant is challenging the order passed under Section 15 CPC vide order dated 21st October 2011 in Title Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2007. As per the claim of the landlord-plaintiff he had given tenancy for Rs.3,500/- per month to the defendant-petitioner and after some time, he stopped payment of rent agreed between the parties and for that he filed the eviction suit. During the pendency of the eviction suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed petition under Section 15 of B.B.C.Act. The court below passed the order in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff-respondent has filed eviction suit on the ground of default in payment of rent. The claim of the petitioner who is a tenant is Patna High Court CWJC No.3596 of 2012 (2) dt.30-03-2012 that the property in question was handed over to him on the basis of an agreement to purchase the property and in pursuance of agreement he has already parted with Rs.1,15,000/- and it was agreed by the plaintiff that he will execute the sale in his favour.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that right from the beginning, the defendant is disputing relationship of landlord and tenant and claiming the possession on the basis of an agreement for specific performance of contract and in token thereof, the plaintiff-respondent has handed over the property in his possession. It has been recoded by the learned trial court that the plaintiff has made a claim that it is nothing but a design to grab the property and for that they have created mischievous deed and on that basis they have filed a petition for specific performance of contract and when the plaintiff could know about the same, a criminal case has also been filed. It is submitted that in retaliation from the side of defendant-petitioner, a criminal case has also been filed. In stead of deciding other issues, I am confined to the present issue of non-payment of rent by the petitioner.

There is no dispute in regard to the premises which he is claiming on the basis of an agreement between the plaintiff landlord, he has been residing there but he is claiming the specific performance of Patna High Court CWJC No.3596 of 2012 (2) dt.30-03-2012 contract and for that a separate suit has been filed. As the petitioner is residing in the suit premises of respondent, there cannot be other view but to pay the rent. For the purpose of Section 15 C.P.C., I do not find any error and, as such, the order of the court below is confirmed. However the petitioner claimed that he has already paid Rs.1,15,000/- by way of consideration money and has claimed that it may be adjusted against the consideration amount of property, if the suit for specific performance of contract is decided in his favour and also submits that the current amount that is being paid be adjusted against the consideration money which the petitioner is required to pay at the end of the trial of suit of Specific Performance of Contract.