Opposing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has referred to Section 32(3) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 and has submitted that the period for completion of the case is six months but the petitioner has taken an indefinite time in filing the written statement without any appropriate explanation thereto. It has further been submitted that on 26.10.2018 in spite of the publication of notice the petitioner did not appear which resulted in the concerned court passing an order for deciding the case ex parte and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had appeared on 06.11.2018 at the first instance. Learned counsel further submits that vide order dated 06.11.2018 ex parte order passed on 26.10.2018 was recalled. Learned counsel has also submitted while referring to the discharge sheet that the petitioner was merely advised rest for ten days which cannot be construed to mean that he was advised bed rest and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It has also been stated that although the petitioner has taken the plea of the petitioner being ill and, therefore, not being able to file the written statement but different ground has also been taken before the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Rent Controller, Sadar Ranchi to the effect that the counsel on behalf of the petitioner was suffering from fever and he could not attend the proceeding on a particular date.
