GADADHAR ROY Vs. CHHEDIRAM PARSURAMKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties plaintiff -opposite party filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 2 of 2001, under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for defendant 'seviction from the suit holding No. 922 situated in Godda town. Defendant besides challenging the maintainability of the suit at the instance of the plaintiff and for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed a petition (An -nexure -3) purporting to be under Section 14(4) of the Act on 28.8.2001 with a prayer to grant leave to contest the suit and also raised question of maintainability thereof. A perusal of the said petition, Annexure -3 reveals that absolutely no ground, as required under Section 14(4) of the Act to contest the suit was mentioned therein. Therefore, in fact it was not a petition for grant of leave to contest, under Section 14(4) of the Act. In such circumstance, the Trial Court was authorized to pass eviction order and decree on the basis of averments made in the plaint, treating them to have been admitted by the defendant. It appears that on the plaintiff 'spetition, Annexure -2, filed on 14.8.2001 for passing an eviction order under Section 14(4) of the Act, the Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 24.2.2003, directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff.

(2.) IT is well settled that while passing the order for eviction at the stage of Section 14(4) of the Act, the Trial Court is required to consider the averments made in the plaint seeking eviction under the provisions of Section 11 and on being satisfied, prima facie, that such eviction order was required to be passed and pass orders accordingly in accordance with law. I find that the impugned order has been passed without following the mandatory requirements for passing eviction order under Section 14(4) of the Act.