Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 645 (JHR)

Gadadhar Roy v. Chhedi Ram Parsurmka

2005-08-25

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has been filed by the petitioner- tenant challenging the order dated 10.5.2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Godda in Title Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2001, whereby he has directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the order. 3. Plaintiff-respondent filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. Even after service of summons, the petitioner did not make out a case for obtaining leave to contest the suit Consequently the suit was decreed under Section 14(4) of the said Act by order dated 24.2.2003. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision No. 292 of 2003. This Court in terms of order dated 20.8.2003 allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 24.2.2003. The matter was remitted back to the Court below to consider the averments made in the plaint seeking eviction and on being satisfied prima facie, a fresh order or eviction may be passed under Section 14(4) of the Act. The learned Court below on remand considered the case of the plaintiff- respondent and after recording satisfaction, the impugned order of eviction was passed which is under challenge. 4. Section 14 of the Act laid down the provision of law for disposal of the case of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirements. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 provides that a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement shall be dealt with in accordance with procedures specified in the section. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14 laid down the manner in which summons shall be served upon the defendant. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 provides that if the defendant-tenant after service of summons fails to make out a case by filing an affidavit, the Court shall not grant leave to contest the suit. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14 laid down the manner in which summons shall be served upon the defendant. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 provides that if the defendant-tenant after service of summons fails to make out a case by filing an affidavit, the Court shall not grant leave to contest the suit. For better appreciation, sub-sections (4) and (5) and sub-section (6) of Section 14 are reproduced herein below:- (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 herein after provided; and in default of the appearances in pursuance of the summons or he obtains 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. (5) The Court shall give to the tenant leave to contest the suit if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction on the grounds specific in clauses (c) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11. (6) When leave is granted to the tenant to contest the suit, the latter may, within 15 days from the date of the order, pray after filing the requisite court-fee, required for a written statement that the affidavit may be treated as the written statement, or if he choses to file a separate written statement he may do so within 15 days of the grant of leave to contest the suit and if he does not file the written statement within the period he shall not be allowed to do so later. The Court shall thereafter commence the hearing of the suit as early as practible. 5. Admittedly, leave was not granted to the petitioner to contest the suit and order of eviction was passed. The earlier order of eviction was set aside only on the ground that before passing the order the Court below did not consider the averments made in the plaint. 5. Admittedly, leave was not granted to the petitioner to contest the suit and order of eviction was passed. The earlier order of eviction was set aside only on the ground that before passing the order the Court below did not consider the averments made in the plaint. Now from the impugned order it appears that the Court below has considered the entire pleadings of the plaintiff-respondent and after recording prima facie satisfaction on the existence of bonafide, requirement, the eviction order has been passed. 6. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 very clearly provides that in the event the tenant fails to obtain leave from the Court to contest the suit, then the statement made in the plaint shall be deemed to have been admitted by the tenant. Having regard to the aforesaid provisions, in my opinion, the plaintiff is not required to lead evidence with regard to the facts which is deemed to be admitted by the tenant for his failure to obtain leave to contest the suit. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below. This revision application is dismissed.