- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred against the orders passed by learned Additional Munsif-II, Ranchi dated 6th july, 2010 (Annexure-3) as well as dated 4th October, 2010 (Annexure-6), whereby, the prayer made by the present petitioner, who is original plaintiff in Eviction Title Suit No. 1 of2008, for withdrawal of the rent deposited by the respondent-tenant.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the orders passedby learned Additional Munsif-II, Ranchi datedth July, 2010 (Annexure-3) as well as dated 4thOctober, 2010 (Annexure-6) for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present petitioner is original plaintiff, who has instituted Eviction Title Suit No. 1 of 2008 before learned Additional Munsif-II,Ranchi mainly on the ground of default on payment of rent. (ii) It appears that the written statement has already been filed by the respondent, wherein, the landlord-tenant relationship has not been denied. (iii) It further appears that the present petitioner, who is original plaintiff/landlord, is seeking rent at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month, whereas, the respondent, who is tenant, has admitted rent only upto Rs. 4,000/- per month. (iv) It also appears that the amount of rent as Rs. 4,000/- per month has been deposited by the respondent before the concerned trial court. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that they are depositing the amount of rent every month before the concerned trial court. (v) It further appears that the present petitioner, who is the original plaintiff/landlord, has preferred an application for withdrawal of the admitted or undisputed amount of rent, which has been deposited by the respondent-tenant. Previously, such application was rejected vide order dated 6th July, 2010 (Annexure-3) and again this type of prayer was rejected vide another order dated 4thOctober,2010 (Annexure-6).It appears that the trial court has lost sight of the fact that there is no dispute of landlord-tenant relationship, looking to the written statement filed by the respondent-tenant. Moreover, Rs. 4,000/- per month rent has been admitted by the respondent- tenant. If these are two admitted facts, there are no justifiable reasons for the trial court to reject the prayer of withdrawal of the undisputed amount of monthly rent, which is an error apparent on the face of the record.
(3.) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I hereby quash and set aside the orders passed by learned Additional Munsif-II, Ranchi dated 6th July, 2010 (Annexure-3) as well as dated 4thOctober, 2010 (Annexure-6) to the extent which the prayer of the present petitioner for withdrawal of the amount of rent has been rejected. I hereby allow the prayer of the present petitioner, who is the original plaintiff in Eviction Title Suit No. 1 of 2008, to withdraw the amount of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month, which has been deposited by the respondent. So far as arrears of rent is concerned, which is deposited by the respondent, is also hereby permitted to withdraw, upon proper application before the trial court.;