IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 357 of 2009
--------
Bijay Kumar Das & ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Ajit Prasad Singh ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
--------
For the petitioners : Mr. M.K.Dey, Sr. Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
--------
th
Order No. 04: Dated 27 April, 2011
Per D.N.Patel, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the original defendants of
Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2007, who are challenging the order passed by the Munsif,
Chaibasa, dated 9th January, 2009, whereby, as per the provisions of Section 15 of
the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be
referred as “the Act, 1982” for the sake of brevity) the defence of the original
defendants have been struck off for non-payment of the rent.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by
the Munsif, Chaibasa dated 9th January, 2009 in Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2007,
mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(I) The present petitioners are the original defendants in Eviction Suit
No. 5 of 2007 and the present respondent is the original plaintiff. Under Section
15 of the Act, 1982, an order was passed on 7th December, 2007 for depositing the
rent before the learned trial court by the original defendants. Thereafter, the suit
was dismissed for default on 6th March, 2008.
(II) It is admitted fact that in pursuance of the direction given by the trial
court the present petitioners (original defendants) were depositing the rent in the
trial court.
(III) It further appears from the facts of the case that Eviction Suit No. 5
of 2007 was, thereafter, restored to its original file and number on 2nd September,
2008 and immediately thereafter, an application was preferred by the original
plaintiff on 6th December, 2008 that the defendants are not depositing the rent and,
therefore, the defence of the original defendants must be struck off, as per the
provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act, 1982.
(IV) While passing the impugned order, the learned trial court has not
2.
properly appreciated the fact that the petitioners (original defendants) have
already deposited the rent from March, 2008 till December, 2008 on 15 th
December, 2008. This fact is even admitted by the original plaintiff before this
Court.
(V) Thus, the petitioners (original defendants) have been regularly
depositing the rent before the trial court and their willingness is there to deposit
the same during the pendency of Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2007.
3. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed
by the Munsif, Chaibasa, dated 9th January, 2009 in Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2007
and I hereby direct the trial court to dispose of the Eviction Suit as early as
possible and practicable, preferably on or before 30th December, 2011. Learned
counsel for both the sides submitted that they will cooperate with the hearing of
Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2007 and will not ask for any unnecessary adjournment.
4. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
( D.N. Patel, J. )
A.K.Verma/