BIRENDRA NATH SINGH Vs. SANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the admission stage itself heard Mr. S.S. Dwivedi and Mr. S. K. Verma, learned counsel for the parties at length and this case is being disposed of on its merit.

(2.) The petitioner assails an order dated 11 -12-1990 passed by Sri T. L. Verma, District Judge, Patna dismissing his Title Appeal No. 110 of 1990 as being barred by limitation.

(3.) Against the petitioner and his brothers, opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, though in the revision petition erroneously shown as plaintiffs-opposite party, Title suit No. 9 of 1987 was filed by the landlady-opp. party No. 1 for their eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 25,137.00. During the pendency of the suit the landlady filed an application under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for directing the petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 to deposit arrears of rent. The application was allowed by order dated 17/07/1989 directing non-compliance of the said order to entail in striking off the defence of the tenant as contemplated under that section itself. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the opp. party No. 1 states that the said order was challenged in C.R. No. 1729 of 1989 which was barred by limitation and it was dismissed but he is unable to say whether for default or summarily. Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner says that he is not in a position to state as to what happened to the fate of that civil revision application, Mr. Verma, however, proceeds to point out that because of non-compliance of the order dated 17/07/1989 the defence was struck off. From paragraph 5A of the certified copy of the judgment dated 23/06/1990, decreeing the suit, it appears that the defence of the petitioner as also of the opp. parties Nos. 2 and 3 were struck out by the Court. From paragraph 5C of the said judgment it appears that the defendants led no evidence in support of their defence taken in the suit. At the time of argument neither defendants nor their counsel addressed the trial court though it appears from the judgment that defendant No. 1 personally examined the witnesses of the plaintiff. The suit was finally decreed by judgment and decree dated 23-6-1990.