ABDUL SALAM Vs. MOHAMMAD JUNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS -landlord, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2005, passed by the 2nd Munsif, Sasaram in Eviction Suit No. 3 of 2004 rejecting their prayer for eviction of the tenants -defendants in terms of Sec.14(4) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and accepting the written statement on payment of cost, have preferred this application.

(2.) FACTS lie in a narrow compass; - Plaintiffs -petitioners filed suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. After service of summons, defendant no. 1 appeared in the suit on 12th of October, 2004 and filed written statement on 17.1.2005. However, the said written statement was filed without the leave of the Court. Plaintiffs filed application for passing order of eviction, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant having not obtained the leave as contemplated under Sec.14(4) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1/1/2013 Page 102 Suman Kumar Verma Versus Union Of India the statement made by him shall be deemed to have been admitted by the defendant and they shall be entitled to order of eviction on the aforesaid ground itself. By -reason of the impugned order said application has been rejected.

(3.) IN support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Manik Roy vs. Raghunandan Prasad (1993(2) PLJR 215) and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 10 of the judgment which reads as follows: - "It may be stated here that in the case of Champa Devi (Supra) no previous decision of the Court was noticed. I have already indicated above the distinction between the leave to contest within the meaning of Sec.14(4) and the permission to contest as a result of favourable order under Order 9, Rule 13. I have no manner of doubt that in view of the special procedure provided for trial of suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity or expiry of the period of tenancy, the requirement of taking leave of the Court as provided under Sec.14(4) is mandatory and in its absence neither the written statement can be accepted nor the defendant can be allowed to contest the suit. In my opinion, the decision rendered in Champa Devi 'scase (supra) does not state the law correctly and deserves to be overruled."