MAYA PAUL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the Order dated 7.1.2004 passed by learned Munsif, Ghatsila in Eviction Suit No. 4 of 1993, whereby the tenant -petitioner's defence qua ejectment has been struck off as a penal consequence of delayed payment of rent under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Court below, by Order dated 13.2.1996, passed under Section 15 of the said Act directed the petitioner to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 215/ - from January, 1993. Since thereafter she has been depositing the rent regularly. It has been stated that due to non -availability of the Treasury Officer, there was delay of four days in depositing the rent of February, 2001. In the impugned order, learned Court below has noticed that the rent is to be deposited in the bank after passing the Challan through the Treasury Officer and that the Challan was presented to the Court below within time, but deposit was made after about four days, the same was signed by the Treasury Officer.

(3.) MRS . Sheela Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that admittedly there is a delay of four days in actual deposit of rent for the month of February, 2001, and there is no proper explanation of such delay on record. Learned Counsel submitted that when the order has been passed under Section 15(1) of the said Act, the same shall have to be strictly complied with and having not done so, the petitioner has rendered himself liable to suffer the consequences.