KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. DAHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants faced with the decree of eviction from a building to-which the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') applies, have moved this Court in revision in Civil Revision No. 3 of 1984 against the judgment and decree of eviction and in Civil Revision No. 2010 of 1983 against the order refusing to set aside the ex pane decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. Plaintiffs opposite party filed the suit for eviction of the defendants- tenants from a shop situate in holding No. 540, ward No. 3 in the town of Biharsharif, oh the ground of bona fide requirement for the occupation by the sons of plaintiff No. 2 opposite parties No. 2, a ground covered by Section 11 (l)(c) of the Act. A suit numbered as Title Suit No. 35 of 1983 of the court of Munsif at Biharsharif was entertained in accordance with the special procedure prescribed in this behalf under Section 14 of the Act. The learned Munsif on 18th April, 1983 ordered for the issuance of summons for service by ordinary process through nazarat as also by registered post with acknowledgment due addressed to the tenants. There is nothing on the record to show whether the summons issued by ordinary process were served upon the tenants or not. But the summonses sent by registered post were returned unserved with the endorsement "refused". On 14th June, 1983, the learned Munsif adjourned the suit for 21st July, 1983 with a view to granting "to the tenants further time for appearance. On 21st July, 1983, however, when he found that the tenants had not appeared he excepted the plaintiff's prayer for ex parte hearing and accordingly passed an order. Plaintiffs adduced their evidence in due course and the suit was finally disposal of on ,18th August, 1983. The learned Munsif ordered that the tenants would hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs by 30th September, 1983 failing which the plaintiffs would be entitled to get vacant possession of the suit premises from the defendants through the agency of law at the cost of the defendants and also ordered that the defendants would be liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 42 - per month until vacant possession was delivered to the plaintiffs. Tenants however, filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code on 1st November, 1983 before the learned Munsif stating that on 27th October, 1983 they learnt about the ex parte judgment and decree from one Fahim Mian and after inspecting the records and coming to know about the proceedings and the allegations they filed the said application. The application under Order. IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was, however, rejected by the learned Munsif on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Learned Munsif also decided the issue on the question of the service of notice and held that the post-man deposed to the effect that he contacted all the four tenants individually, but they declined to acknowledge the registered letter containing the notice and refusal in such circumstance, constituted a valid service. Petitioners filed two separate civil revision applications, one against the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree and the other against the decree itself in view of the provisions under Section 14 (8) of the Act.

(2.) Before considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties I may indicate that in the Act some special provisions have been incorporated for disposal of cases covered by the grounds of eviction under Section 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(e) of the Act. These provisions are incorporated in Section 14 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act has given overriding effect to the provisions under Section 14 saying that the provisions of Section 14 or any rule made there under shall have effect notwithstanding any thing inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force. Section 14 runs as follows :

(3.) Obviously for the reasons that have been noticed as the object of the Delhi Amendment Act by the Supreme Court, Section 14 of the Bihar Act, has placed the landlord seeking recovery of possession of a house by ejecting a tenant for his own occupation or for the occupation, of any person for whose benefit the premises is held by the landlord or in case of a tenant holding on a lease for a specified period, on the expiry of the period of the tenancy, in a separate class. The procedure in such case has been simplified with the primary object of avoiding delays in the disposal, of the suits by ensuring that the court shall issue summons in the prescribed form in every such suit in addition to and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service on the tenant or tenants by registered post with acknowledgment due, and if the circumstances of the case so require by the publication of the summons in the official Gazette or news papers circulating in the locality, in which the tenant last resided or carried on business or worked for gain, by providing that the tenant on whom summons is duly served whether by ordinary mail or registered post shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the ground on which he seeks to make such contest and obtains relief from, the court as provided and in default of the appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the suit for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviction ; and even in the case in which the leave is granted, the Court shall follow the procedure of the Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence. The attempt to avoid delays is carried as far as making no provisions for appeal or second appeal in cases in which the decree for the recovery of possession is made in the grounds specified in clauses (c) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act safeguarding of course the right to seek review of the order of eviction in accordance with the provision of Order XLVII of the first Schedule of the Code and a revision to the High Court.