Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It appears that aforesaid eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred as the 'BBC Act') only on the ground of personal necessity. Special procedure was being adopted under Section 14 of the BBC Act. After evidence of both the parties was closed, the defendant No.3 appeared and filed application to recall the ex.-parte order against him on the ground that he was living at Dubai and when he came to know, he filed the application. The defendant No.3-petitioner also prayed for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses and the defendants witnesses. The Court below allowed this application after granting leave to contest to the defendant No.3-petitioner. Defendant No.3 petitioner filed written statement. Subsequently, application was filed by the plaintiff respondent for recall of the said order passed by the learned Munsif on the ground that the father of the defendant No.3 and his brothers had already filed contesting written statement and have also cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses and the eviction suit is to be tried expeditiously under the special procedure, therefore, the application filed by the defendant No.3 should not have been allowed and the defendant No.3 should not have been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. If the order is allowed to stand then it will occasion failure of justice because the matter will linger on. The Court below after hearing both the parties by the impugned order recalled the said orders holding that the earlier the order were passed adopting the procedure of Code of Civil Procedure and according to the learned Court below, the eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity is to be decided in summary procedure and thus the learned Munsif recalled the earlier orders.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel, Mr. S. S. Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the tenancy was not created in favour of defendant No.3 and at paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that the tenancy is in favour of defendant No.1 and 5. This fact is admitted by the written statement filed by the defendant No.3. At paragraph 13 of the written statement, the defendant No.3 clearly stated that tenancy was created only in favour of defendant No.1. According to the learned senior counsel, defendant No.1 is the father of defendant No.3 and defendant No.2 and 4 are brothers of defendant No.3. The learned counsel further submitted that after publication of notice in newspaper when nobody appeared, the Court proceed ex.-parte against the defendant thereafter the one brother of defendant No.3 appeared and filed recall application which was allowed and case proceeded. Subsequently, again other brother appeared and filed recall application after one year which was allowed and they were allowed to contest the suit. The suit proceeded ex.-parte against the defendant No.1 and defendant No.3. Thereafter, the father of the defendant No.3 and 2 and 4, i.e., defendant No.1 appeared and filed recall application for recalling the ex.-parte order against him which was again allowed and then Section 15 application was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed but the defendants did not deposit the rent as directed by the trial Court under section 15 of the BBC Act. The defence was, therefore, struck off and at this stage, the defendant No.3 appeared and filed recall application and the Court below without considering the case that the tenancy was created in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 only which is admitted in the written statement allowed the recall application and permitted the defendant No.3 petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and also defendants. In view of this fact, it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to file application for recall of the order and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the review application and considering the situation, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has recalled the order. Therefore, no case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.