Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 864 (JHR)

Ananda Rtambhara v. Bhaiya Ramesh Chandra Prasad

2014-08-12

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. A suit for eviction being Eviction Suit No.22 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground of personal necessity. Summon was issued to the defendant which was received by him. After expiry of 80th day from the date of receiving summon, the petitioner-defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement. Since leave as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not taken, the court vide its order dated 20.12.2011 refused to accept the written statement. Subsequently, an application was filed for recalling the said order dated 20.12.2011 and also for granting leave to file written statement. That application was rejected on 10.1.2012. 3. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is true that on appearance, the petitioner-defendant did not file any application in terms of the provision as contained in Section 14(4) of the Act but on the very first day of the appearance, written statement was filed wherein it was stated that there has been no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and in such situation, the court should have accepted the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner after granting leave in terms of the provision as contained in Section 14(4) of the Act. 5. It was further submitted that the provision under the Act does not prescribe any period for limitation of filing application for leave to file written statement and in that event, written statement filed should have been accepted by the court, particularly when written statement discloses about the fact that there has been no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties but the court below without considering the case of the petitioner in right perspective rejected the application and thereby the petitioner will have no opportunity to put forth his case and thereby a great injustice would be caused to the petitioner. 6. Under the circumstances, the order impugned is fit to be set aside. 7. 6. Under the circumstances, the order impugned is fit to be set aside. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the provision as contained in Section 14(4) of the Act is mandatory which does stipulate that on service of the summon, if the defendant appears, he has to take leave of the court before filing written statement and if the defendant does not seek leave of the court for filing written statement, the consequence as provided under Section 14(4) of the Act shall ensue meaning thereby that the statement made by the plaintiff in the suit for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the defendant and the plaintiff shall be entitled to an order of eviction. 8. Under the circumstances, the order dated 10.1.2012 never suffers from any illegality. 9. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in sub-section(4) of Section 14 of the Act which reads as follows: “14. Special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.- xxx xxxx xxxx (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.” 10. From a plain reading of Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act, it is evident that a tenant on whom summon is duly served cannot be allowed to contest the prayer for eviction from the premises on the ground of personal necessity, unless he files an affidavit stating the ground on which he seeks to make such contest. Not only this, in default of obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the suit for eviction shall be deemed to have been admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviction. 11. Not only this, in default of obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the suit for eviction shall be deemed to have been admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviction. 11. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner-defendant after putting appearance did not seek leave of the court in terms of Subsection (4) of Section 14 of the Act, though written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant on the day when he put appearance but filing of a written statement in absence of any leave, will not save the defendant from the consequence prescribed under the Act. 12. Since leave of the court has not been taken, consequence as has been contemplated under the said provision gets ensued whereby it would be deemed that the statement made by the plaintiff with respect to eviction on the ground of personal necessity shall be deemed to have been admitted. 13. Thus, it does appear that necessity to obtain leave of the court is mandatory and in its absence, neither the written statement can be accepted nor the defendant can be allowed to contest the case. 14. Similar view has been expressed by the Patna High Court rendered in a case of Abdul Salam and another vs. Mohammad Junai and others [ 2007(2) PLJR 452 ]. 15. The same view has also been reiterated by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court rendered in a case of Manik Roy vs. Raghunandan Prasad [ 1993 (2) PLJR 215 ]. 16. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the order impugned and hence, this application stands dismissed.