CHHATU RAM VERMA Vs. ISTEKHAR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 30.07.2016 passed in Eviction Suit No.15/2013 by the Munsif, Giridih, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner dated 21.03.2015 by making an objection of acceptance of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents/defendants, has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that he has filed the eviction suit for eviction of the respondents from the suit premises under Section 14 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 in which upon notice, the respondents/defendants have appeared and filed the written statement which has been accepted by the trial Court. The petitioner/plaintiff has made an objection vide petition filed on 21.03.2015 stating therein that as per the provision as provided under Section 14 to the Act, 2000, a leave is required to be obtained from the trial Court before accepting the written statement but no such leave has been obtained by the Court, therefore, the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant may not be accepted. The said petition has been objected by the defendant vide rejoinder filed in this regard on 06.06.2015 wherein inter-alia it has been stated that there is requirement of leave of the Court before filing the written statement since the suit for eviction has been filed on the ground of default in making payment of rent and as such, it will not come under the fold of special provision for eviction as provided under Section 14 to the Act, 2000.

(3.) Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has against the ground in assailing the aforesaid order by referring to the plaint which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit which has been filed under Section 14 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 and as such, the suit will be said to be under the provision of Section 14 to the Act, 2000 and hence the trial Court ought not to have any misconception about the requirement to take leave under Section 14 to the Act, 2000, since the suit has been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement and therefore, a regular provision of acceptance of the written statement as provided under Section 11 (c) of the Act, would not be applicable but the trial Court has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has considered the contents of the plaint, wherein although, it has been referred that the defendant has filed the written statement for making payment of rent but the suit is for bonafide requirement and as such, it will be said to be under Section 14 to the Act, 2000. Further, the ground has been raised in substantiating the aforesaid argument by referring to the provision of Section 7 of the Stamp Act as also referring to paragraph 23 of the plaint whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has declared the value of suit premises which is of 12 months rent @ 300 per month which stands at Rs.3, 600/- and accordingly, has paid ad-valorem court fee thereon for the purpose of jurisdiction and trial. Further, there is no prayer sought for in the plaint for recovery of the rent and as such, it cannot be said that the suit has been filed on the ground of default in making payment of rent.