A summary investigation and a prima facie finding regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant are necessary before directing the defendant to deposit rent under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1982.

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22/8/2003 purported to have been passed under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1982 (in short the said Act) in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1994 by which the Munsif, Chaibasa directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- with a further direction that the amount of rent shall not be withdrawn by the plaintiff.

2. The learned Single Judge, differing with the view taken by a Bench of this court in the case of Mohammad lmteyaz Ahmad v. Abdul Quayum and Ors. 2003(2) JLJR 17, referred the matter to the Division Bench for deciding the correctness of the said decision.

3. In Imteyaz Ahmad's case (supra) a Bench of this court held that if an application under Section 15 of the said Act is filed, the correct procedure would be that the court should tentatively examine the materials available and determine whether denial of relationship of landlord and tenant is bona fide or a mere pretence. The court is required to make a summary investigation and record a prima facie finding regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant before directing the defendant to deposit the rent. The court, in Imteyaz Ahmad's case, observed as under:

From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that if in a suit for eviction the tenant contests the suit as, regards his ejectment, the landlord may move an application for an order on the tenant to deposit current rent as also arrears of rent. The court, before passing the order, shall give opportunity to the parties to be heard and prima facie record a finding as regards existence of relationship of landlord and. tenant between the parties. In other words, if an application under Section 15 of the said Act is filed in a eviction suit, the correct procedure would be that the court should tentatively examine the materials available and determine whether denial of relationship is bona fide or a mere pretence.

It is, therefore, clear that before passing an order under Section 15 of the said Act the court is required to make a summary investigation and prima facie record a finding regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant before directing the defendant to deposit the rent in the manner as provided under Section 15 of the said Act.

4. The learned Single Judge, in the case in hand, is of the view that such inquiry and finding is not necessary in all cases. The question raised by the learned Single Judge, as to what is the procedure to be adopted by the court before passing an order under section. 15 of the said Act, has been fully discussed and decided by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Mahabir Ram v. Shiva Shankar Prasad and Ors. AIR1968 Pat 415 . The Full Bench, considering the scope of Section 15 of the Act (section 11A of 1947 Act), observed:

Another decision of this court in Parbati Kueri v. Sugan Chand Jain AIR 1967 Pat 415 is relevant while interpreting, the provisions of Section 11A. The suit there was for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a house. The plaintiff opposite party No. 1 filed an application in the trial court under Section 11A but that application was opposed by the defendant petitioner on two grounds. The first ground was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the second one was that there was no arrear of rent due to the plaintiff. The trial court recorded its findings holding that prima facie there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and prima facie a certain sum was in arrears as rent. On those findings the court below directed the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent and monthly rent within a certain time failing which the defence against ejectment had to be struck off. The petitioner being aggrieved by that order contended that the trial court was not justifie