The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of Section 15 of the B.B.C Act, and the sufficiency of evidence presented in the case.

The petitioner by way of filing this present petition under 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.4.2012 as contained in Annexure-of the writ petition passed by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division)-I Jamshedpur in Eviction suit No. 51 of 2008 whereby the learned court below has allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent under section 15 of B.B.C Act and directed the petitioner-defendant to deposit the rent for nine months from December, 2007 to August 2008 at the rate of Rs. 300/-per month amounting to Rs. 2700/-as well as for payment of current rent from, the month of September, 2008 to March 2012( i.e. till the month prior to this order) i.e. for 55 months at t6he rate of Rs. 300/-per month amounting to Rs.16,500/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 19,200/- to be deposed in the court below within 15 days of this order.

2. The learned court below further directed to the petitioner-defendant to deposit future rent for the month of April, 2012 on wards in court by 15th of each next following month onwards regularly, till disposal of this suit.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the court below has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order as it was passed without considering the fact that actual tenant of the suit premises is Sunita Devi who is the wife of the defendant/petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order is required to be set aside for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though specific contention raised before the court below but the court below failed to appreciate the said contention and thereby committed an error while passing the impugned order without impleading the said Sunita Devi as one of the party in the proceeding though she was necessary and proper party in the proceeding.

4. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned court below and submitted that the court below has taken into consideration the relevant materials and documents on record and thereafter passed an order against the petitioner-defendant. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out from the documents annexed with counter affidavit filed by the respondent that an agreement was executed between the original owner and present petitioner. In this context the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has invited the attention of this court to annexure -C i.e. agreement for monthly tenancy for 11 months executed between Satish Rajak and Nago Rajak. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that that the said property was also purchased by the respondent . on 27 Nov.2007 and in respect thereof the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the Annexure-A i.e. sale deed executed between the respondent and original owner in respect of the suit property. The learned counsel for the respondent while referring annexure B to the counter affidavit pointed out that legal notice was sent to the present petitioner after purchase of the property in question. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also invited the attention of this court to Annexure-D and pointed out that the deposition was given by the respondent wherein she has specifically stated that sale deed was executed on 27.11.2012 and thereafter intimation was also given to the tenant in this regard, and the said fact was also narrated in para 4 of the deposition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted by referring Annexure-E that earlier owner was also examined in Eviction suit No. 51 of 2008 and in his deposition earlier owner has also admitted the fact that the premises in question was given on rent to Sri Nago Rajak and the agreement executed by them dated 30.7.1999 was also referred by the previous owner of the premises in para-4 of