MADAN SINGH Vs. SUNIL PRASAD @ SUNIL KUMAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No.1 for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) This Civil Miscellaneous application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by Munsif III, Chapra in Eviction Suit No.4 of 2015 whereby the learned Court below has granted leave to the defendant to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Sec. 11(i)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982(hereinafter referred to as the B.B.C. Act).

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for bonafide requirement of the suit premises, therefore, special procedure under Sec. 14 of the B.B.C. Act is applicable. For contesting the suit, the defendant is required to obtain leave on the basis of an affidavit disclosing the grounds on which he seeks to make such contest and if the Court from the affidavit finds that the disclosed fact may dis-entitles the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction on the grounds specified in clauses (c) and (e) of subsection (1) of Sec. 11 then the leave is to be granted. According to the learned counsel, in the present case, the defendant did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant nor the defendant has denied the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff. The plea taken in the affidavit is that he has spent Rs.4,76,000 along with other tenants in making construction of the suit premises. So far this defence is concerned, it is not related to the requirement of the landlord and that cannot be investigated under Sec. 14 of the B.B.C. Act. The Court below without considering this provision has by non-speaking order granted leave to the defendant.