UDAY NARAIN TIWARY Vs. GOURI SHANKAR JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision application is directed against the order dated 22.7.1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge IV, Motihari, in Money Suit No. 80 of 1985, whereby the Court below in purported exercise of jurisdiction under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act'), allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 for striking off the defence of the defendant- petitioner for non-compliance of the order and direction for depositing all the arrears of rent and current rent.

(2.) THE plaintiff-Opposite party No. 1 filed the aforesaid money suit against the defendant-petitioner seeking a decree for arrears of rent of Rs. 16,450/- and a decree for cost of the suit. In the said suit an application was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 purported to be a petition under Section 15 of the said Act for a direction to the defendant to deposit arrears of rent with effect from 7.12.1983 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month as fixed by the House Rent Controller, Motihari. The said application was opposed by the defendant-petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that the house rent was already paid and remitted by money orders. The Court below, however, allowed the said application in terms of the order dated 2.9.1996 and directed the defendant-petitioner to deposit arrears of rent as well as month to month rent. The petitioner's case is that after the said order was passed, the petitioner filed an application for review of the said order which was registered as Misc. Case No. 16 of 1996. In the meantime, the plaintiff- Opposite party No. 1 filed a petition on 2.6.1997 praying therein for striking off the defence of the petitioner for not having deposited the arrears of rent as directed by the Court. The Court below by the impugned order allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff-Opposite party No. 1 ordered for striking off the defence of the defendant-petitioner. Hence this civil revision application.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-Opposite party No. 1 submitted that since the defendant-petitioner did not challenge the order for deposit of rent passed under Section 15 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel then submitted that although Money Suit No. 80 of 1985 is not a suit claiming a decree for recovery of possession but the plaintiff has pleaded all the facts which entitled the plaintiff to get a decree for recovery of possession. According to the learned counsel, the Court below rightly passed the order striking off the defence of the defendant-petitioner.