LAWS(PAT)-2016-12-99

SANJEET KUMAR Vs. SMT. RITU SINGH

Decided On December 23, 2016
SANJEET KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Smt. Ritu Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

(2.) The present revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease , Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as B.B.C. Act) against the judgment and decree of eviction against the defendant. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the fact that the defence of the tenant was struck off in accordance with the provision of Section 15 of B.B.C. Act by order dated 17.08.2012. The effect of striking off the defence of the tenant in a suit for eviction is well explained in two Bench decisions of this Court firstly in Shri Sachidanand Singh v. Smt. Tarawati Mishrain, 1992(2) PLJR 195 Sri Dinesh Nandan Sahay v. Ram Kripal Singh, 1996(1)PLJR 234. It is, therefore, evident that after the defence was struck off, the defendant-tenant was not entitled in law to lead evidence, and his evidence against the ejectment as prayed by the plaintiff, if any, cannot be looked into in the proceeding for eviction.

(3.) The matrix of facts discloses that the suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiffs on the ground of expiry of lease and personal necessity of the suit premises. It is, however, again not disputed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite parties that the lease deed was not adduced in evidence in accordance with law in the eviction proceeding and only the signature appearing on the said lease deed has been adduced in evidence and marked as exhibit. With regard to personal necessity the plaintiff adduced oral evidence in support of the contention that the suit premises is required for setting up a business by the plaintiff.