SHANTI BANERJEE WIDOW Vs. PRABHAT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2009, are aggrieved of order dated 19.11.2014 by which their application for closing the defendants' evidence has been declined and the defendants have been permitted to lead evidence on the issue of arrears and adjustment of rent.

(2.) Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2009 has been instituted on the ground of default in payment of rent and recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 4,48,000/-. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves owner and landlords of the schedule "I" premises. They have pleaded that the defendants are occupying the suit premises on month to month tenancy; monthly rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.24,000/- which was payable by the 7th day of each calendar month. The defendant no. 2 has contested the suit raising various objections to the maintainability of the suit. He has pleaded that the schedule "I" property, which was a residential property, was let out to him for commercial purposes. The defendant no. 2, however, admits that under the rent agreement monthly rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 24,000/-, however, he has claimed that out of the said amount, Rs.8,000/- was agreed to be adjusted every month (para 7). He has further asserted that the suit premises was an old construction which was remodeled by him through scraping, plastering etc. Paragraph no. 8 of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no. 2 reads as under :

(3.) By an order dated 06.09.2011 the application under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 was allowed and the defendants were directed to deposit Rs. 6,40,000/- as the arrears of rent and the current rent from May, 2010. This order was challenged by the defendants in W.P.(C) No. 5903 of 2011, however, without success, but with liberty to them to comply with order dated 06.09.2011 in three installments. Thereafter, the defendants deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 06.03.2012, but on their failure to comply with the order passed under Section 15, their defence has been stuck out by an order dated 06.03.2012. Thereafter, the plaintiffs laid their evidence and their evidence was closed by an order dated 15.09.2012. About one and half years thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed a petition for closing the defendants' evidence; by that time the defendants had examined two witnesses. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 19.11.2014.