KAILASH PRASAD CHOUHAN Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision in directed against the order dated 23.8.97 passed by Munsif, Chaibassa, in Eviction Suit No. 3/97 thereby and thereunder the leave as prayed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 14(4) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (in short, to be called as the 'Control Act') was rejected and it was ordered by the learned Munsif that the Eviction suit will be heard in view of the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act and the tenant has no right to contest the claim of eviction.

(2.) THE fact, in short, for the purpose of this revision is that the opposite party filed the aforesaid Eviction suit in the Court below claiming himself to be the landlord and the suit premises is required for his personal need and necessity. The petitioner-defendant entered appearance on 2.5.97 and on three occasions or so simply filed petitions for adjournment for filing written statement and lastly on 16.6.97 prayed for leave supported with affidavit to contest the suit as required under Section 14(4) of the said Act. This prayer was opposed by the learned Oppsite Party mainly on the ground that the prayer was made at a belated stage and it was incumbent on the part of the tenant to seek leave of the Court after making out a ground on the day he makes appearance in the suit itself and if the tenant fails to make such prayer then on subsequent date he is debarred from making same claim. The trial Court accepted the contention of the landlord-plaintiff and rejected the prayer of leave to contest the suit and it was ordered that the suit will be taken up and the tenant-defendant has no right to contest the claim of eviction as required under Section 14(4) of the Control Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order, this revision has been referred. The landlord- opposite party entered appearance and contested this revision at the admission stage itself.

(3.) TO me it appears that Section 14(4) of the Control Act simply makes a provision that the tenant should seek leave of the Court making out a ground to contest the suit and it is for the Court to consider the same. If at all the legislature has the intention to give some rider, then the Legislature would have indicated that prayer for leave should be made on the very date of appearance, and in such a situation, the tenant can make some prayer of leave on subsequent date even after the appearance. But such prayer is not expected to be made at an abnormal late stage with sole intention to delay the disposal of the suit because such suit in view of the provision laid down in the Control Act itself requires expeditious disposal. There may be case which indicates that the tenant was deliberate and negligent in making such prayer only to defeat the provision of the law so far the expeditious disposal is concerned. In such a situation the trial Court is justified in refusing such prayer.