LAL MOHAN PRASAD Vs. BHAIRO KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision by the defendant is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff dated the 14th Nov., 1968 passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 1966 filed by the plaintiff for the eviction of the defendant petitioner from the suit premises. The eviction of the petitioner was sought for on two grounds namely, default in payment of rent and the personal necessity of the plaintiff opposite party whose case was that he filed an application under section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, on the 7th May, 1966 for a direction to the defendant to pay all the arrears of rent and the current rent by the fifteenth of each of the following months during the pendency of the suit. The learned Munsiff passed an order on the 7th May, 1966 directing the petitioner to pay all the arrears of rent and the current rent by the fifteenth of each of the following months during the pendency of the suit, failing which his defence would be struck out against his eviction. The petitioner failed to comply with this order and his defence against ejectment was struck out by an order of the learned Munsif the 15th May, 1968, and the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an application in this Court which was numbered as Civil Revision 703 of 1968. The Civil Revision application was disposed of by Mahapatra, J., on the 28th Aug., 1968.

(2.) It was held in that case that striking out of the defence of the petitioner against his eviction on account of the order passed under section 11-A of the Act only meant that the defendant (petitioner) be precluded from contesting the plaintiff's claim for eviction but not from contesting the plaintiff's other claim, namely, for the realisation of the arrears of rent. It would be open to the defendant to show by evidence that the arrears of rent, as claimed by the plaintiff, was not, in fact, due from him. As there was a relief other than that eviction of the defendant, as claimed by the plaintiff, namely, for the realisation of the arrears of rent, it was held the fixing up the case for ex-parte hearing would only mean that the defendant was precluded from contesting, by giving evidence, the plaintiff's claim for eviction and it was not open to the defendant to contest that part of the plaintiff's case which was based on his personal necessity of the suit house. The civil revision application was accordingly, allowed in part.

(3.) After the decision was given by this Court, the opposite party filed an application on the 1st Oct., 1968 for an amendment of the plaint, praying therein that his claim with respect to the recovery of the arrears of rent, as claimed in relief No. 2 of the plaint, be deleted. The plaintiff filed another application for fixing a date ex parse of the suit. The petitioner filed rejoinders to both these applications. Both the matters were heard along with a third matter by the learned Munsiff. The third matter was concerned with an application filed by one Brij Mohan Sahay praying therein to be added as a defendant to the suit. The learned Munsiff dismissed the application for addition of party and that order has now become final.