C.misc./1236/2023 Of Smt. Renu Bajaj v. Sri Pankaj Agrawal, Son Of Sri B.p. Agrawal, Resident Of Opposite Gardiner Road Hospital, Income Tax Building, Bailey Road, Police Station - Kotwali, Post Offic

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1236 of 2023 ====================================================== Smt. Renu Bajaj, Wife of Sri Anil Kumar Bajaj, Resident of Flat No. 302,Pushpanjali Venkatesh, Budh Marg, Police Station - Kotwali, Post Office -G.P.O. District - Patna -800001. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.Patliputra Sales Corporation a partnership business firm having its officesituated at Office No. 12A and 2B, Block-A, First Floor, Ashoka Place,Exhibition Road, Police Station - Gandhi Maidan, Post Office - G.P.O.,District - Patna- 800001 through one of its partner Sri. Pankaj Agrawal, sonof Sri. B.P. Agrawal.situated at Office No. 12A and 2B, Block-A, First Floor, Ashoka Place,Exhibition Road, Police Station - Gandhi Maidan, Post Office - G.P.O.,District - Patna- 800001 through one of its partner Sri. Pankaj Agrawal, sonof Sri. B.P. Agrawal. 2.Sri Pankaj Agrawal, Son of Sri B.P. Agrawal, resident of Opposite GardinerRoad Hospital, Income Tax Building, Bailey Road, Police Station - Kotwali,Post Office - G.P.O., District - Patna - 800001.Road Hospital, Income Tax Building, Bailey Road, Police Station - Kotwali,Post Office - G.P.O., District - Patna - 800001. 3.Sri Rishu Bajaj, Sri Anil Kumar Bajaj, resident of Flat No. 302, PushpanjaliVenkatesh, Budh Marg, Police Station - Kotwali, Post Office - G.P.O.District- Patna - 800001.Venkatesh, Budh Marg, Police Station - Kotwali, Post Office - G.P.O.District- Patna - 800001. ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Abhishek Kumar, AdvocateFor the Respondent/s: Mr.====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHAORAL JUDGMENT Date : 26-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I intendto dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself. 2. Despite valid service of notice, none has enteredappearance on behalf of the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the orderdated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Sub Judge-XIII, Patnain Eviction Suit No. 123 of 2013 whereby and whereunder theapplication dated 06.02.2018, filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent &Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BBCAct’), has been rejected. The learned counsel further submitsthat the petitioner is the plaintiff in the eviction suit and hasbrought the suit against the respondents, which is a partnershipfirm and its partners. The learned trial court did not pass anyorders on the aforesaid application merely holding that theplaintiff has not submitted any document regarding relationshipbetween the parties as landlord and tenant and did not show anypaper which could clear the fact about the rent fixed betweenthe parties and, thus, the learned trial court held that it wasdifficult to determine the rent and pass the order under Section15 of the BBC Act. The learned counsel further submits that thefinding of the learned trial court is perverse as the plaintiff hasspecifically pleaded in paragraph 6 of his plaint that rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month was fixed and there is no denial from theside of the defendants/respondents to the said fact. Rather thedefendants/respondents have admitted in paragraph 2 of theirapplication for leave to defend the suit that there is relationshipof the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and thedefendants. In the light of these facts, the learned trial court notpassing any order is very surprising. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents have been avoiding appearancebefore this Court despite valid service of notice and the samemodus operandi has been adopted by the defendants before thelearned trial court as well. 4. Perused the records. submits that the respondents have been avoiding appearancebefore this Court despite valid service of notice and the samemodus operandi has been adopted by the defendants before thelearned trial court as well. 4. Perused the records. 5. I find some merit in the submission of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner. The conduct of the learned trial courtin not passing any orders on the application filed under Section15 of the BBC Act is most unfortunate and should be deprecated. 6. In such view of the matter, without going into themerits of the case, the learned trial court is directed to pass areasoned order on the application dated 06.02.2018 filed onbehalf of the plaintiff/petitioner under Section 15 of the BBCAct within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of acopy of this order, since the court cannot keep the matterpending saying that it is difficult to determine the rent and passorders under Section 15 of the BBC Act. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the eviction suit has been filed in the year 2015 andtill date, issues have not been framed and the learned trial courtmay also be directed to frame the issues and dispose of theeviction suit in a time bound manner. 8. In view of the fact that in the eviction suit of 2015,issues are yet to be framed, learned trial court is directed toproceed for settlement of issues immediately and try to disposeof the matter at the earliest preferably within a period of sixmonths from the date of receipt/production of a copy of thisorder. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- AFR/NAFRNAFRCAV DATENAUploading Date27.11.2024Transmission DateNA