Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard Counsel for the parties in the limitation matter. In the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the civil revision is condoned and the limitation petition is allowed.

2. This civil revision under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short, the BBC Act) by the defendant arises from an order of eviction.

3. The plaintiff-opposite party filed Title Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1996 in the Court of 1st Subordinate Judge, Godda for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises, which is part of Holding No. 542 of Ward No. 3 of the Godda Municipality, described in Schedule-A to the plaint, on the ground of expiry of the period of tenancy. According to the plaintiff, the premises was let out to defendant-petitioner for a fixed period or 2 years from 1.5.94 under registered deed of kirayanama. The tenancy thus, according to him expired by efflux of time on 30.4.96. The petitioner did not, however, hand over the premises to the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the suit was filed.

5. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi earned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly submitted that the trial Court had followed the general procedure meant for trial of the suits under the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the appeal before the District Judge was maintainable.

Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the BBC Act lays down that if the suit is brought by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement or expiry of the period of tenancy, as specified in Clause (c) or Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in the Section. Section 13 lays down that the provisions of Section 14 or any rule made thereunder shall have overriding effect over the other provisions of the BBC Act or any other law for the time being in force. A Division Bench of this Court in Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Kamla Singh 1992 (2) PLJR 111 : 1992(2) BLJ 54, has held that the cumulative effect of Sections 13 and 14 is that if the suit for eviction is based upon any of the two grounds of personal necessity or expiry of the period of tenancy, the same has got to be tried under the special provision prescribed under Section 14. It has been observed that the said provisions cast duty upon the Court to follow the special procedure and where the Court fails to adopt the special procedure, the parties are required to take objection and insist on trial of the suit in accordance with the special procedure. In the present case, no objection to the so-called general procedure, allegedly adopted by the Court below, appears to have been taken either in the Court below, or in this Court earlier. The petitioner having filed affidavit and sought leave to contest as required under the special procedure laid down in Section 14, he cannot turn around and raise such an objection after the order of eviction has been passed as against him.

7. The argument of the petitioner in this regard is that the order refusing leave to contest does not shut out the tenant from the proceeding altogether and in any case, he is not relegated to a position worse than that of a tenant whose defence has been struck off for non-compliance of the order under Section 15 of the BBC Act, where only defence as to ejectment qua tenant is struck out; in a case where leave to contest the suit is refused under Section 14(4), the tenant has still right to participate in the hearing, cross-examine the landlord's witnesses on points other than the defence as to ejectment qua tenant. Reliance has been placed on Sachidanand Singh v. Smt. Tarawati Mishrain 1992 (2) PLJR 195; 1992 (2) BLJ 109.

10. In fairness to the Counsel for the plaintiff, however, I must mention that according to him, after the oral prayer to permit cross-examination was rejected by the Court below, he should have challenged the order in revision. Also that on the dates and at the time the plaintiff's witnesses were examined, the advocate of the petitioner was absent. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, was that he can challenge that order even at this stage under Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code. These are questions which are not necessary to be considered in the present case. I am satisfied that the landlord-plaintiff has made out a case of eviction on the ground of expiry of period of tenancy under Section 11(1)(e) of the BBC Act and the judgment does not suffer from any error of law within the meaning of Section 14(8) of the Act to warrant interference.