Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Date: 18-10-2017 Despite valid service of notice upon the sole respondent/opposite party and his appearance through Vakalatnama, there is no representation on his behalf. Learned counsel, who had filed Vakalatnama on his behalf, submits that the said respondent/opposite party has taken back the brief and he does not have any further instructions.

2. The petitioner, in the present application filed under Patna High Court C.Misc. No.244 of 2017 dt.18-10-2017 Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is aggrieved by an order, dated 07.12.2016, passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Patna, in Eviction Suit No. 58 of 2015, whereby, he has rejected an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short 'the BBC Act').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant's plea to the effect that he was inducted as tenant by the petitioner's daughter, could not have been a ground for rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 15 of the BBC Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be right in his submission. The court below ought to have taken into Patna High Court C.Misc. No.244 of 2017 dt.18-10-2017 account the law laid down by this Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Purbey Vs. Mahesh Kumar Poddar, reported in 1991 (1) PLJR