In cases where a defendant denies the landlord-tenant relationship, the court must examine the available evidence to determine if the denial or dispute over the plaintiff's title is bona fide or a mere pretense. If the court finds no prima facie merit in the denial, the defendant can be called upon to make a rent deposit under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 22.9.1995 passed by learned Munsif, Patna City, in Title Friction Suit No. 28 of 1992 whereby and whereunder learned Munsif rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Sec. 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for a direction to the defendant-opposite party for payment of arrears of rent from the date of initiation of the suit, The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for a decree of eviction by the defendant from the building premises which is the subject matter of the suit,

2. The plaintiffs case, inter alia, was that the building premises originally belonged to Mr. Sonny Suleman Affal and the defendant-opposite party was a tenant in respect of the said building under him on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 200.00 . The plaintiff purchased the building from Mr. Sonny Suieman Afzal by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 12.5.1989 and came in possession of the same as .owner thereof. The plaintiffs case was that the building premises was purchased by them for their own residential purposes and, therefore, they called upon the defendant-opposite party to vacate part of the building premises which was in their occupation as a tenant. It is further alleged that the defendant was apprised about the purchase of the property by the plaintiff and he was called upon to pay arrears of rent and vacate the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Section 15 of the said Act praying for a direction to the defendant-opposite party to deposit the arrears of rent and also current rent as provided and the said application was contested by the defendant by filing rejoinder. The learned court below by the impugned order dated 22.9.1995 rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for depositing of rent.

3. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the order passed by the learned court below as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that when the court below has come to a finding that the plaintiff has established prima facie title over the suit premises then there was no reason for rejecting the application of the plaintiff.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Asgar Hussain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-opposite party supported the impugned order and submitted that when the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established then there was no occasion for the court below to make a direction for payment of rent as contemplated under Sec. 15 of the said Act.

5. I have gone through the impugned order passed by learned court below. It appears that in the re-joinder filed by the defendant to the application of the plaintiff under Sec. 15 of the said Act the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. It was stated in the said re-joinder that the defendant is residing in the house in the capacity of owner. In other words, take defendant has claimed titled in himself on the basis of Heba (gift). Learned court below after considering all the facts and the documents filed by the parties came to a prima facie finding that the plaintiff has established title over the suit premises. However, the court below has held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant everpaid rent of the suit premises to the erstwhile owner Sonny Suleman Afzal. Learned court below therefore rejected the application of the plaintiff.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that when the learned court below has come to a prima facie finding that the plaintiff established his ownership over the suit premises then the application ought not to have been rejected on the ground that there was no evidence of payment of rent by the defendant to the plaintiff or their vendor.