Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 847 (JHR)

Alok Kumar Biswas @ Alok Kumar Biswas @ Bapi Biswas v. Sahani Dispendrapal Singh @ Sabani Dispendrapal Singh

2012-06-19

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER 1. By the Court.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Perused the papers. 3. The present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of t4e Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 17.4.2012 passed in Eviction Suit No. 33 of 2004 by the learned Civil Judge (JD). Gumla whereby the application dated 19.3.2012 filed on behalf of the present petitioners (original defendants in the suit) under Order VIII. Rules 8 and 9 of the CPC praying therein to permit the petitioners to file additional written statement has been rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners (original defendants) submitted that the application was submitted by the petitioners under Order VIII. Rules 8 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the subsequent development having concerned with the subject-matter of the suit came in light and knowledge to the present petitioners after filing the written statement in the matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this fact for the first time came in light in the year 2007 and thereafter subsequent development having concerned with the subject-matter of the suit took place in the year 2012 also came in light and knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore the petition was made before the Court below with a request to permit them to submit additional affidavit. It is further submitted that the Court below has committed an error by reaching to the conclusion that the said suit was filed and confined under Section 14 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction Control) Act. 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act. of 2000") and therefore it has no relevance with the subject-matter of the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint pointed out that the suit was filed for alleged violation of terms and conditions of the agreement as well as for the bonafide requirement. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the conclusion drawn by the learned Court below is not correct and the Court below ought to have considered the application filed under Order VIII, Rules 8 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that the Court below has not assigned any reasons about the non-applicability of the petition filed under Order VIII. It is submitted that the Court below has not assigned any reasons about the non-applicability of the petition filed under Order VIII. Rules 8 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure vis-a-vis applicability of Section 14 of the Act 2000. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Ladu Gopal Kedia v. Bibi Jaibunissa, 1991 (2) PLJR 1. By referring paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in an eviction suit filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity of land-lord as well as another ground mentioned under Section 11 (l) and Section 14 of the Act the procedure laid down under the CPC will be followed. 7. As against that the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the Court below has not committed any error while passing the impugned order which is under challenge. It is stated that Section 14 of the Act. 2000 stipulates the special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement and therefore the learned Court below after careful consideration of the submission made before it passed an order rejecting the application under Order VIII, Rules 8 and 9. CPC made by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the application was submitted only with a view to delay the proceeding before the Court below the said application has been submitted at a belated stage on completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and that too after examination of about 19 witnesses. It is submitted that the written statement was filed way back in the year 2005 and therefore there was an ample opportunity before the defendants to submit such application before the Court below but instead of doing so, defendants have not submitted any application, and now, only with a view to delay the proceeding, such application was filed and therefore, the Court below after careful consideration of the submission made before it, rejected such application by discussing the scope of Section 14 of the Act of 2000. It is further submitted that the Court below has not committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the said order and therefore the present petition filed by the petitioners may be rejected. 8. It is further submitted that the Court below has not committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the said order and therefore the present petition filed by the petitioners may be rejected. 8. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned order it appears the application was submitted by the present petitioners under Order VIII, Rules 8 and 9 of CPC inter alia praying therein to permit them to submitted additional affidavit in respect of subsequent development. On perusal of the paragraph-5 of the application it appears that the present petitioners came to know about the subsequent development. which has taken place in the year 2007 having concerned with the subject-matter of the suit. It appears that written statement was filed in the Year 2005 and subsequent' thereto' i.e. in the year 2007 subsequent development came within the knowledge of the present petitioners. Likewise, another subsequent development in respect of subject-matter of the suit came in light and knowledge to the petitioners in February. 2012 and this fact was also stated by the petitioners in paragraph-6 of the said application. While dealing with the said petition the Court below ought to have considered the scope of Section 14 of the Act of 2000 in light of facts of the case and for that purpose it is relevant and necessary to refer some of the averments made in the plaint and more particularly averments made in paragraphs 11 and 12 that the present petitioners (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and as such the defendant No. 1 made herself liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The averments with regard to bonafide requirement is made in subsequent paragraphs over and above aforesaid averments made in paragraphs 11 and 12. Thus the suit cannot be said to be filed only under Section 14 of the Act 2000. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioners under Order VIII, Rules 8 and 9 of CPC is required to be considered in that perspective. However, the Court below has considered the entire application mainly focusing scope under Section 14 of Act of 2000. The judgment referred to and relied upon by the petitioners reported in 1991 (2) PWR 1 is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, the Court below has considered the entire application mainly focusing scope under Section 14 of Act of 2000. The judgment referred to and relied upon by the petitioners reported in 1991 (2) PWR 1 is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgments are relevant and therefore the same is reproduced herein below : 9. From a perusal of the said provision, it would be evident that a suit for eviction can be med by a landlord on more than one grounds as specified therein. Section 14 of the Act, however, provides for a special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement or on the ground of expiry of the period of lease as specified in Clause 'c' or clause 'e' of sub-section .(1) of Section 11. Section 14, therefore, carves out an exception from the general rule that in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant; the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure would be followed. 10. From a combined reading of Sections 11 and 14 of the Act. Therefore it becomes clear that the special procedure laid down under Section 14 of the Act can be taken recourse to only in a case where the ground for eviction is covered by Clause 'c' or 'e' of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. Where; however, the landlord choses to join more than one ground of eviction which may include one of the grounds specified in Clause 'c' or Clause 'e' of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act the general provision laid down for deciding a suit shall be applicable. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment as well as considering the facts and circumstances of the present case this Court is of the view that the Court below has committed error while reaching to the conclusion that the additional affidavit cannot be permitted at a belated stage. Hence this petition is allowed and order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Gumla in Eviction Suit No. 33 of 2004 is hereby quashed. 10. Hence this petition is allowed and order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Gumla in Eviction Suit No. 33 of 2004 is hereby quashed. 10. It is clarified that since-the suit for eviction is of the year 2004 with a view to avoid the further delay the petitioners are permitted to file additional affidavit within two weeks from the date of this order and thereafter the Court below shall make endeavour to expedite the matter considering the age of the suit. Petition allowed.