SITA SAH Vs. RAM JATAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff - landlord whose suit for the eviction of the respondent -tenant was allowed by the Munsif, Patna city by judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1985. The respondent -tenant preferred title Appeal No. 170 of 1985 which was allowed by the Addl. District Judge II, Patna by judgment and order dated 21st September, 1987 remanding the matter to the trial Court to dispose of the suit in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The aforesaid judgment and order of the Addl. District Judge II, Patna has been challenged in this appeal by the plaintiff -landlord.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. The appellant -landlord filed a suit for the eviction of the respondent -tenant from the premises in question on the ground of default in payment of rent as also on the ground of his bonafide personal need. According to the appellant the respondent was tenant of the premises in question since 1.5.1970 under registered agreement paying rent at the rate of 25/ - per month. The respon -denttenant defaulted in the matter of payment of rent and thus rent for the months from April 1976 to December, 1976 remained unpaid compelling the appellant -landlord to file title Suit No. 1 of 1977 under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Apart from the ground of default, the ap -peliant -landlord also pleaded that his son Krishna Prasad was an unemployed engineer and that he required the premises in question bonafide for his personal use as he needed the premises for his unemployed engineer son who intended to start a business in electrical goods. For that purpose, the premises in question was required by the appellant -landlord.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, on an application made by the appellant -landlord under Section 15 of the Act, an order was passed by the Trial Court on 2.9.1983 directing the respondent -tenant to deposit the arrears of rent for the period November, 1980 to August, 1983 within 15 days of the date of the passing of the order failing which his defence would be struck off and he would not be permitted to cross -examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff -landlord. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent -tenant preferred Civil Revision No. 1367 of 1983 before this Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. However the High Court directed that the respondent -tenant be allowed to adduce evidence on the question of adjustment pleaded by him. It is the case of the respondent -tenant that the certified copy of the order passed in the Civil revision matter was made available to him only on 1.11.1983 even though he had applied for the same on 27.9.1983 itself. After obtaining the certified copy of the order of the High Court, he deposited the arrears of rent on 3.11.1983.