- (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THIS civil revision application has been preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 3.5.2011 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ranchi, in Execution Case no. 9 of 2008. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The opposite parties have filed a petition under section 5 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent in which the petitioner appeared and contested the proceeding where -after the fair rent to the tune of Rs.840/ - per month for disputed premises was fixed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the said order by which rent was fixed, but he could not succeed and the first appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Thereafter the petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner which also stood dismissed. Thereafter, the opposite parties have filed petition before the learned court of Sub Judge for execution of the order dated 17.11.1997 passed in BBC case No. 38 of 1995. During the pendency of said execution case no. 9 of 2008, the petitioners have filed petition under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the jurisdiction of the court on amongst other grounds. Learned Sub Judge 1 after hearing the parties dismissed the prayer made by the petitioners by order dated 3.5.2011 and hence this revision application before this Court.
(3.) IT is contended that the opposite parties have also filed Eviction Suit vide Title Suit No. 57 of 1993 before the court of Sub Judge IX, Ranchi, in which the petitioners have succeeded and the learned sub Judge has held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Against the judgment pronounced by the learned Sub Judge, the opposite parties have preferred First Appeal being Title Appeal No. 4 of 2007 before the learned District Judge in which judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was set aside and the opposite parties were directed to be evicted from the suit premises. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Second Appeal No. 105 of 2008 before this Court which has been admitted and is now sub judice. He has also pointed out that the petitioners have also preferred Writ Petition (C) No. 3880 of 2007 before this Court, but the said writ petition stood dismissed for non prosecution. The petitioners have also filed C.M.P no. 130 of 2012 for restoration of the said writ petition.;