Petitioners challenged an order rejecting their written statement in an eviction suit, arguing the application of summary procedure was incorrect as the suit involved mixed grounds beyond those covered by the specific summary provisions.
The impugned order rejecting the written statement was set aside, allowing the petitioners to file it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16291 of 2011
====================================================== 1 (I) Reshma Devi wife of late Baleshwar Prasad
(II)Umesh Kumar (III)Ramesh Kumar (IV)Vishwanath Kumar
(V)Lallan Kumar sons of late Baleshwar Prasad, resident of Adarsh Nagar Lagauli, P.O. Tilrath, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai
(VI) Indu Devi, wife of Chander Sao resident of village Ulao, District Begusarai
(VII) Urmila Devi, wife of Pawan Sao resident of village- Manjhaul P.S. Manjhaul, District Begusarai
(VIII) Kalyani Devi wife of Sanjay, village –Naula, P.S. Birpur, District-Begusarai
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
Rajdeo Sah son of late Ram Khelawan Sah, resident of village Adarsh Nagar Lagauli, P.O. Tilrath, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai.
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Indu Bhushan Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
6 08-10-2012 Heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.6.2008 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Begusarai in Title Eviction No. 34 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to reject the written statement filed by the defendant- petitioner inter alia on grounds of having been filed in violation of the provisions of Section 14(5) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Patna High Court CWJC No.16291 of 2011 (6) dt.08-10-2012
2 / 5
Control Act, 1982( hereinafter referred to as the „Act), mandating the tenant to seek leave of the Court concerned to make a contest before the filing the written statement.
It is the case of the plaintiff that having taken a compassionate view on the request made by the defendantpetitioner, who happens to be his own brother, he rented out his premises to him, upon payment of rent, while the plaintiff was in service. It is the case of the plaintiff that after superannuation when he returned, he requested his brother to vacate the premises but the same was refused, forcing him to prefer the suit proceeding in question.
The defendant-petitioner responded to the summons issued in the eviction suit and filed his written statement on 8.1.2007. An objection was raised by the plaintiff-respondent as to the written statement filed by the defendant- petitioner inter alia on grounds of having been filed in violation of the statutory provisions of Section 14(5) of the Act. The learned Court below considering the rival contentions and relying upon the provisions of Section 14(5) of the Act, rejected the written statement of the petitioner by the order impugned and hence the present application.
Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference
Patna High Court CWJC No.16291 of 2011 (6) dt.08-10-2012
3 / 5
to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, has submitted that the summary procedure provided under said provision is only relatable to any suit filed on grounds specified in Section 11(1)(c) or (e) of the Act and on no other grounds.
It is stated that the moment any additional ground other than the grounds mentioned in Clauses (c) or (e) of Section 11(1) of the Act, is taken by a plaintiff, then the summary procedure has to give way to the general procedure followed in general suit proceedings. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1991(2) PLJR 1 (Ladu Gopal Kedia Vs. Bibi Jaibunissa) paragraphs 10, 40, 53 and 56.
The relief prayed in the suit has been spelt out at paragraph 15 of the application and which manifests that apart from the ground of personal necessity, a ground of default in payment of rent has also been set forth by the petitioner, with prayer for recovery of the arrears of rent. Learned counsel thus submits that in view of the Full Bench pronouncement in the case of Ladu Gopal Kedia (supra), the learned Court below has misdirected itself in rejecting the written statement while relying upon the provisions of Section 14 and that the suit has to proceed as per the general provisions.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16291 of 2011 (6) dt.08-10-2012
4 / 5
The submissions though has been contested by Mr. Jha appearing for the plaintiff-respondent but he could not deny the fact that in addition to the grounds of personal necessity, the plaintiff has also made a ground of default of rent against the petitioner and has also prayed for recovery of the arrears thereof together with interest. It is however submitted that even otherwise, the provisions of Section 15 of the Act obliges the tenant to make payment of the rent during the pendency of the proceedings or face striking of the defence. It is thus submitted that in the circumstances accompanying the suit proceedings, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below which does not require any interference.
The only issue posed before this Court is whether the suit has to proceed in a summary manner as per Section 14 or shall be governed by the general procedure. Considering the nature of relief prayed in the suit proceedings, the issue would not detain this Court any longer.
The observations of the Full Bench of this Court in the case
of Ladu Gopal Kedia (supra) reads as follows:
“10. From a combined reading of Sections 11 and 14 of the Act, therefore, it becomes clear that the special procedure laid down under Section 14 of the Act can be taken recourse to only in a case where the ground for eviction is covered by clause „c‟ or „e‟ of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. Where, however, the landlord
Patna High Court CWJC No.16291 of 2011 (6) dt.08-10-2012
5 / 5
choses to join more than one ground of eviction which may include one of the grounds specified in clause „c‟ or clause „e‟ of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, the general provisions laid down for deciding a suit shall be applicable.”
In view of the position flowing from the dictum of the Full Bench, the suit in question had to be governed by the general provisions and not in a summary manner in terms of Section 14 of the Act.
Having held as such, the natural corollary is that the mischief underlying Section 14(5) of the Act would not come in the way of the defendant in filing his written statement.
For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the order impugned cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside. This application is allowed.
Considering the nature of the suit, the learned trial Court would be well advised to expedite the trial.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Bibhash/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the summary procedure under Section 14 applies when eviction grounds include both personal necessity and default in payment of rent.
Whether Section 14(5) bars a tenant from filing a written statement if the eviction suit involves mixed grounds.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the written statement violates the Act when summary procedure is not permissible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ladu Gopal Kedia Vs. Bibi JaibunissaApplied¶4
1991(2) PLJR 1 (Ladu Gopal Kedia Vs. Bibi Jaibunissa)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Reshma Devi and others
Rajdeo Sah
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
