QURBAN QURAISHI Vs. SATYA PAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the respective counsel for the parties.

(2.) The order impugned is dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure-5) passed by the Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj in Eviction Suit No. 9 of 2009. The facts of the case are that the Plaintiff-Respondent preferred an eviction suit on the ground of his personal need under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) The Defendant-Petitioner appeared and filed his written statement on 16.6.2010. Subsequently on 18.6.2010, another application was moved for recalling the order dated 20.2.2010, whereby the court had passed an order to proceed ex parte. The application dated 18.6.2010 is Annexure-3. In the said application at Paragraph-1 it has been stated that the court below deemed the service to be sufficient after expiry of a period of one month since neither the notice nor the acknowledgment was received back. The contention of the Petitioner's counsel is that this application was rejected by means of the impugned order dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure-5) to the writ petition illegally.