RADHA KRISHNA JHA @ BACHCHA BABU Vs. DINESH JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ applications are taken up together as the issues are common in both these cases. The petitioner in both these cases, Radha Krishna Jha is the common plaintiff in eviction Case No. 2 of 2009 and 3 of 2009. In C.W.J.C. No. 3883 of 2011, Dinesh Jha is sole defendant, whereas in C.W.J.C. No. 4301 of 2011, his brother Ganesh Jha is the defendant.

(2.) It is not in dispute that both the defendants namely Dinesh Jha and Ganesh Jha are tenants of the petitioner. The petitioner filed two eviction cases bearing Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2009 and Eviction Suit No.3 of 2009. Both the cases proceeded simultaneously in the Court of Munsif-ll, Darbhanga. During the proceeding of eviction case, the plaintiff/petitioner filed petitions under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act in each of the Eviction Cases for deposit of arrears of rent from August, 2009 to April, 2010 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month as well as current rent. The trial court vide order dated 6.5.2010 allowed the petition of the plaintiff and directed each of the two defendants to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs.400/- per month from August, 2009 to April, 2010 by 30.6.2010 as well as current rent at the same rate by 7th day of subsequent month. In pursuance of the order dated 6.5.2010, the defendants deposited the entire arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3600/- in time, but did not deposit the current rent in time, which led the plaintiff to file a petition in terms of Section 15(1) of the B.B.C. Act to strike off the defence of the defendants. Only after filing of the petition to strike off the defence, the defendants deposited the current rent from May, 2010 onwards in two installments belatedly beyond prescribed time. The first installment of Rs. 2,000/- was deposited on 25.9.2010 and the second installment of Rs. 800/- was deposited on 3.11.2010. The trial court refused to strike off the defence holding that though there was violation in depositing the rent in time, the same in the facts and circumstances did not warrant extreme punishment of ejectment of defence.

(3.) Mr. Durga Nand Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the defendants did not deposit the current rent in time, as such trial court ought to have struck off the defence of the defendants in view of mandate of Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. He submits that if the tenant does not deposit the arrears as well as current rent or either of it, as ordered under Section 15 of the Act, the Court would have no option but to order the defence against ejectment to be struck off and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment and further the Court shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the landlord's witnesses. The plaintiff/petitioner contended that such delay is not condonable in view of express provision of Section 15 of the Act. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manju Choudhary & Anr. vs. Dulal Kumar Chandra,1988 PLJR(SC) 36 as well as in the case of Kamla Prasad Gupta vs. Arun Kumar Ojha,1992 2 PLJR 778.