Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1147 (PAT)

Sardar Singh Kalra v. Mahesh Kumar Lohani

2003-11-10

NAGENDRA RAI

body2003
Judgment 1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 22.9.2001 passed by the court below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party under section 14(4) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Necessary facts for disposal of the present revision application are that the plaintiff opposite party filed the suit on 18.3.1997 for a decree of eviction under section 14 of the Act on the ground of personal necessity. Summons was duly served on the tenant-petitioner and, thereafter, the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing and on 25.7.1998, it was decreed ex parte. On 31.3.1999, the defendant-petitioner filed a misc. case for setting aside the ex parte decree and on 3.7.1999, the ex parte order and decree dated 25.7.1998 were set aside with cost of Rs. 100/- and the next date fixed was on 12.7.1999 and the defendant was directed to take step according to law. On the next date, the defendant neither deposited the cost nor did he file any affidavit in terms of sec. 14(4) of the Act, rather a petition for time was filed for filing written statement. The next date fixed in the case was 26.7.1999, on which date also the defendant did not deposit the cost nor did he file the said affidavit. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 12.8.1999, on that date also only a time petition was filed without complying with the earlier order of filing the affidavit and depositing the cost. The case was adjourned to 26.8.1999, on which date the plaintiff-opposite party filed a petition for passing a decree in terms of section 14(4) of the Act. Thereafter, the defendent-petitioner filed an objection on 13.9.1999 and a petition for condoning the delay in deposit of cost as well as a time petition for filing affidavit was also filed and on the next date i.e. 29.9.1999 an affidavit was filed on behalf of the defendant. 3. The only question for consideration in this case is as to whether a case for passing a decree in terms of section 14(4) of the Act is made out or not? The suit for eviction is disposed of by following a special procedure as provided under section 14(4) of the Act. Sub-section 4 of section 14 reads as follows: "14. The only question for consideration in this case is as to whether a case for passing a decree in terms of section 14(4) of the Act is made out or not? The suit for eviction is disposed of by following a special procedure as provided under section 14(4) of the Act. Sub-section 4 of section 14 reads as follows: "14. Special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on ground of bona fide requirement : (4) The tenant on whom summons is duly served (whether by ordinary mail or by registered post) shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the ground on which he seeks to make such contest and obtains leave from the Court as hereinafter provided; and in default of the appearances in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the suit for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid." 4. According to the said provision, after service of summons, the tenant, if wants to contest the eviction, has to file an affidavit stating the ground on which he seeks to make such contest and obtains leave from the Court; and in default of the appearances in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave the statement made in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the decree on the said basis shall be passed. 5. In this case, admittedly the tenant did not appear inspite of valid service of summons and the decree was passed ex-parte. However, the same was set aside when the defendant appeared and a direction was given to the defendant to deposit cost and to proceed according to law by the next date. From a perusal of the different orders it is clear that neither the defendant deposited the cost nor did he file an affidavit and delayed the matter and when the plaintiff filed a petition to make a decree in terms of section 14(4) of the Act, he filed an objection on 13.9.1999 and on 29.9.1999 he filed an affidavit. It is a suit of 1997 and the conduct of the defendant-petitioner from the very beginning is to delay the disposal of the suit. 6. It is a suit of 1997 and the conduct of the defendant-petitioner from the very beginning is to delay the disposal of the suit. 6. No doubt, it is not necessary that the defendant should file an affidavit on the first day of his appearance but with regard to the spirit and object underlined in section 14 of the Act, which requires a summary and expeditious disposal of the eviction suit, no unreasonable latitude should be allowed to the defendant as that will amount to frustrate the very object of section 14 of the Act. The court below rigthly held that the conduct of the defendant was not such as to grant him time to file an affidavit when several opportunities were given and he did not avail of the same, nor did he deposit the cost withir time, which was a condition-precedent for setting aside the ex parte decree. The court below has gone into the claim made by the plaintiff-opposite party and found that a case for eviction of the defendant-petitioner was made out. Thus, the order of the court below under section 14(4) of the Act does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 14(3) of the Act. 7. For the reasons aforementioned do not find any merit in this Civil Revision and it is, accordingly, dismissed.