BINAY KUMAR VERMA Vs. BASANT RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the learned Munsif, Chapra in Eviction Case No. 18 of 2017 by which the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is bad in law as well as on facts. The court below has committed gross error in not decreeing the suit under Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC as the defendant in his defence has clearly admitted that he has not paid rent after 2016 and became defaulter in the eyes of law. According to him, in a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity, the court below ought to have passed a decree on admission made by the defendant that he had not paid rent after 2016, which is more than two months statutory provision, as provided under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. He has argued that the findings of the court below are perverse.

(3.) The short facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2017 against the defendant-respondent on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. His case is that the defendant is his tenant at monthly rental of Rs.1300/-. He has paid rent till December, 2016. He has failed to deposit rent from January, 2017 to April, 2017. His further case is that he has two sons. His first son is PhD and the second son is a doctor. They are unemployed and dependent upon him and for starting their own business, they need the premises given on rent to the defendant.