Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. It appears that the present plaintiff-petitioner filed Eviction Suit No.6 of 2010 for eviction of the respondent herein on the ground of Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter the same shall be referred to as „BBC Act‟). The defendant respondent appeared in the suit and without taking leave as required under Section 14 sub Section 4 of the BBC Act fled the written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Court below by the impugned order has accepted the written statement overruling the objection raised by the plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision as contained under Section 14 sub Section 4 of the BBC Act is mandatory and unless the defendant-respondent obtained leave under the said provision, he cannot be allowed to contest the eviction suit.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in fact the respondent has purchased the property in the name of the plaintiff-petitioner as such there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Singh Vs. Ram Chandra Sah 1992 (2) PLJR 90 has held that the provision as contained under Section 14 sub-Section 4 of the BBC Act is mandatory.

11. Considering the above referred to issues, this Court in Civil Misc. Case No.244 of 2016 by order dated 16.09.2016 has held that „the trail Court without considering the settled principal of law passed the order granting leave to the tenant to contest in the manner not permitted by law.‟ In the present case what to speak of granting leave or not in fact, the affidavit itself has not been filed.

12. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Court below had no jurisdiction to accept the written statement, particularly when the defendant-respondent has not obtained leave as required under the provision of Section 14(4) of the BBC Act which is mandatory provision. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

13. In the result, this Civil Misc. application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to proceed according to law.