REYAZUL HAQUE Vs. MOSST. MAIMUN KHATOON AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff -opposite party No. I filed the suit, out of which this revision arises, for eviction of the defendants. It was based on multiple grounds permissible for such a suit under Sec. 11 of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), plaintiff states that defendant No. 1 is his tenant and he has unlawfully sublet it to defendant No. 2. It was also disclosed in the plaint that the building was needed bona fide by the plaintiff for personal use and occupation. Defendant No. 1 appeared before the trial court on October 10, 1983 and filed his written statement. Time had been granted to defendant No. 2 to file his written statement by October 24, 1983. On that date he made a motion that time so granted for filing written statement may be extended. On the said date the trial court realised that one of the grounds alleged in the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff -opp. party No. 1 was her personal necessity. By its order dated October 24, 1983, it directed that since defendant no 1 had not obtained any permission to contest the suit on the said ground in accordance with sub -section (4) of Sec. 14 of the Act, defendant No. 1 will be deemed to have accepted the correctness of the ground alleged by the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1. In the said order the trial court also observed that it will be open to defendant No. 1 to contest the suit in respect of other grounds. At the same time, the trial court granted time to defendant No. 2 to file a written statement.

(2.) The present revision is directed against the order of the trial court dated October 24, 1983. The validity of the said order has been strongly assailed on behalf of defendant No. 1. In short, the argument advanced on behalf of the defendant -applicant is that two procedures cannot be followed in one and the same suit. It is pressed upon me that it is not possible to apply the procedure contained in Sec. 14 of the Act in respect of the grounds mentioned in clauses (c) and (e) of sub -section (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act and a different procedure in relation to other grounds mentioned in sub -section (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy in this revision certain developments in law concerning eviction of tenants of buildings may be noticed. The general law governing tenancy including those of buildings is contained in Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The law of tenancy contained in the said Act is one sided and is loaded in favour of the landlord. State enactments apart, all that a landlord the Transfer of Property Act is required to do, is to institute a suit for ejectment of a tenant after giving him 15 days clear notice terminating his tenancy with the expiry of the month of tenancy.