VIVEK RAISURANA Vs. BHRAWALI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application filed by the defendants -petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge -Ill, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 10 of 2003 whereby the application filed by the petitioners to recall the order dated 3.6.2005 has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiff -respondent filed Title Suit No. 10 of 2003 for a decree of eviction of the defendants from the building premises. The defendants -petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement. On 4.3.2004, the plaintiff filed application under Sec. 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (in short 'BBC Act ') for a direction to the defendants -petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent allegedly due for the month July, 2002 @ Rs. 5,000.00 per month as also the current rent. The petitioners filed, rejoinder to the said petition and the Court below by order dated 5.7.2004 directed the petitioners to pay the rent of July and August, 2002 and also the arrears of rent from September, 2003 till the date of the order. The petitioners ' case is that since there was apparent error on the face of the order, a review application was filed which was registered as Misc. Case No. 32 of 2004. The Court below by order dated 28.2.2006 rejected the review petition holding that there was no ground for review of its earlier order. During pendency of the review petition, the plaintiff filed an application for striking off. the defence of the defendants -petitioners for non -compliance of the order dated 5.7.2004. The Court below by order dated 3.6.2005 ordered for striking off the defence of the defendants -petitioners. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application for recall of the order by which the defence was struck off on the ground, inter alia, that they paid a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 at the time of negotiation of the lease in the year 1985 and also on the ground that since the date of order, they have been depositing the current rent. The Court below after hearing the parties rejected the said application and refused to recall the order by which defence of the defendants was struck off.

(3.) AS noticed above, application under Sec. 15 of the BBC Act was disposed of by order dated