LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-133

PRAKASH KUMAR SINHA Vs. HIRA LAL SAH

Decided On September 23, 2016
Prakash Kumar Sinha Appellant
V/S
HIRA LAL SAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choubey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This revision application has been filed under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the BBC Act) questioning the legal sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree for eviction dated 31.07.2014 passed in Eviction Suit No. 120 of 2011.

(3.) The suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity alone. In the said suit the defendant appeared and filed written statement along with petition dated 17.02.2012 praying for grant of leave to file written statement. However, the said petition was rejected on 29.05.2012 on the ground that the tenant-defendant had not obtained the leave as required under Sec. 14(4) of the BBC Act by filing affidavit stating the ground for contesting the suit. The said order was assailed by the tenant-defendant before this Court by filing C.W.J.C No. 4892 of 2013. However, this Court by order dated 17.05.2013, which is Annexure-A to the reply filed on behalf of the opposite parties to the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 5391/2016), dismissed the application. It further appears from Annexure-B to the said reply that the defendant-petitioner approached the Apex Court by filing petition for special leave to appeal which was also dismissed. The matter did not end there and the tenant-defendant filed another C.W.J.C No. 10891 of 2014 assailing the subsequent order in the eviction suit refusing to recall the earlier order dated 29.05.2012 refusing leave to the defendant-tenant. This application was also dismissed by order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure-C). Thereafter, the learned court below has proceeded with the trial of the suit and has passed the impugned judgment and decree directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises.