ASHWANI KUMAR BASAK Vs. RABINDRA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision petition, which was directed to be put up for admission before a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge and that is how it is before us, the petitioner prays to set aside an order dated 30-4-1993, passed by Shri S.N. Singh, Munsif, Ranchi, in Eviction Suit No. 75 of 1990 striking off his defence for non-compliance of the order dated 23-1-1992 passed under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The relevant facts are in a narrow compass. The suit aforementioned was filed by the opposite party in December, 1990 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The opposite party filed an application on 9-1-1992 under Section 15(1) of the Act for issuing a direction to the petitioner to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, which was the last rent paid, with effect from October, 1990 to February, 1992, the current as well as furture rents. The petitioner contested the prayer of the opposite party alleging non-applicability of Section 15 of the Act as the suit has been instituted on the ground of personal necessity as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act. The opposite party replied alleging, inter alia, that his prayer is squarely covered by Dwarika Prasad Kapri v. Chandramania Devi 1987 PLJR 864. The learned Munsif by his order dated 23-1-1992 allowed the prayer of the opposite party and directed the petitioner to deposit rents from October, 1990 to January, 1992, within fifteen days and the rents for future months by the 15th day of the months succeeding as envisaged under Section 15(1) of the Act. The petitioner, however, deposited rents from December, 1990, without making any attempt to get the. order dated 23-1-1992 modified and/or set aside by filing any revision. The opposite party on 13-4-1993 filed an application for striking off the defence of the petitioner on account of non-compliance of the order dated 23-1-1992 alleging, inter alia, that rents for October and November, 1990, were not deposited by him. The petitioner filed a rejoinder asserting, inter alia, that he has been regularly depositing the rents within the stipulated period and as such his defence cannot be struck off, that there is no provision under the law directing him to deposit the rents prior to the institution of the suit ; and that order in that regard is without jurisdiction and hence the petition be rejected

(3.) The parties were heard, and as already stated by the impugned order, the defence of the petitioner was struck off for non-compliance of the order dated 23-1-1992 holding that the rents for the months of October and November, 1990, were not deposited.