Patna High Court
Kanhaiya Lal KeshriversusPratibha Srivastava
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The order directing the deposit of Rs 10,000 per month is set aside as it is not supported by any evidence of the rent last paid, as required by Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act.
Summary
The petitioner Kanhaiya Lal Keshri challenged an order dated 11‑07‑2025 that directed him to deposit Rs 10,000 per month as arrears of rent and future rent under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. The eviction suit was filed by the respondent after purchasing the property, and the petitioner claimed he was not a tenant of the respondent and that the rent amount was never pleaded or proved. The court observed that neither the plaint nor the written statement disclosed the rate of rent last paid, and the petitioner had not admitted any such amount. Since Section 15 requires the deposit to be at the rate of rent last paid, the order could not be based on an unspecified figure. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the civil miscellaneous application.
Issues considered
- Whether a court can order a tenant to deposit rent under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act when the amount of rent last paid is not established.
- Whether the plaintiff’s status as a tenant of the predecessor owner affects the validity of the rent‑deposit order.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act — s. 15
Subjects
- lease
- rent
- eviction
- deposit of rent
- Section 15
- Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act
- civil miscellaneous application
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1137 of 2025
======================================================
Kanhaiya Lal Keshri Son of Late Prahlad Prasad, Resident of J- 36, Peoples
Co-oeprative Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Town and District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Pratibha Srivastava Wife of Dr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Resident of House
No.- J- 36, Peoples Co-operative Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh,
Town and District- Patna.
2. Dr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava @ Dr. Arvind Kr Sinha, Son of Sri Prabhu
Nath Prasad, Resident of House No.- J- 36, Peoples Co-operative Colony,
Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Town and District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Verma
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Pankaj Maijorwar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 03-02-2026 The present civil miscellaneous application has been
filed against the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 by which the
learned Trial Court has passed order directing the
petitioner/defendant to deposit a rent of Rs. 10, 000/- from June
2024 to July 2025 by way of arrears of rent within 15 days of
this order and further directed to deposit future rent by 15th day
of each succeeding month in the Court. None of the party shall
withdraw the same until the final disposal of the suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent/plaintiff has filed Eviction Suit No. 60 of 2024 after
purchasing the suit property from one Banke Bihari Lal through
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1137 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
registered deed of sale. Petitioner/defendant was tenant of the
said Banke Bihari Lal and he has stopped the payment of rent to
the respondent/plaintiff consequently, the eviction suit has been
filed on the ground of personal necessity of the suit property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is not a tenant of the present plaintiff and this fact has
not been pleaded in the written statement. However, on this
point, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the
rejoinder to the petition filed under Section 15 of the Bihar
Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, the petitioner
has admitted that he was a tenant of Banke Bihari Lal. Neither
party has disclosed the rate of rent allegedly being paid by the
plaintiff/defendant, and there is no averment in the plaint or the
written statement with respect to the last paid rent.
3. It is surprising that on what basis a sum of Rs.
10,000/- per month has been awarded to the plaintiff to be
realised from the defendant, as the same is not clear from the
case record. Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent &
Eviction) Control Act contemplates an order for deposit of rent
by the tenant in a suit for eviction at the rate at which rent was
last paid. However, in the present case, it is completely silent as
to what the last paid rent was, as neither has the plaintiff averred
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1137 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
the same in the plaint nor has the defendant admitted any such
rate of rent having been paid.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
11.07.2025 is set aside and the present civil miscellaneous
application stands allowed.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…