Nirmal Kumar Jain v. Smt. Padmawati Devi

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition has been filed on 07.04.2009 for recalling/rehearing of C.R. No.1215 of 2006, which was dismissed on 29.01.2008 without hearing the petitioner.

The matter arises out of an eviction suit, which was filed by the sole opposite party as far back as in the year 2001 for eviction of the petitioner claiming the petitioner to be his tenant. In the said suit the plaintiff-opposite party filed a petition under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for payment of rent, which was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Bhagalpur vide order dated 04.05.2006. The said order was challenged by the defendant-petitioner in C.R. No.1215 of 2006.

In the said civil revision the petitioner filed I.A. No.6017 of 2007 for stay of further proceeding of the eviction suit and this court passed an interim order of stay and directed issuance of notice in the civil revision as well as in the interlocutory 2 application and also directed that the said civil revision be placed within top ten cases immediately after service of notice to the opposite party. It transpires that immediately after service report of notice was received, the office of this court quite justifiedly listed the said civil revision under the heading “Admission” on 29.01.2008 within top ten cases as per the specific direction of this court. In the said circumstances, there is no error or mistake on the part of the office for listing the case on that date.

It is not in dispute that the said civil revision was listed clearly on the daily cause list along with the name of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but in spite of that no one appeared for the petitioner and this court considering the facts that the eviction suit having been unnecessarily delayed, looked into the matter and after perusal of the materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court below and the grounds taken by the petitioner against it, found that the learned court below had very carefully considered the nature of the suit, the relationship between the parties, the rate of rent and the amount due and only thereafter it had passed the impugned order. In the said circumstances, no jurisdictional error having been found, the civil revision was dismissed on 29.01.2008.

From the facts and circumstances of this case it is quite apparent that the petitioner is using dilatory tactics for unnecessarily delaying the disposal of the said suit, as about 15 months after the said order was passed in the civil revision, the 3 instant M.J.C. case has been filed on 07.04.2009. So far the claims of the petitioner is concerned, it has to be considered at the time of final hearing of the said suit on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties, specially in view of the fact that the defendant- petitioner is not claiming any title of his own over the suit property, hence he cannot be allowed to remain in the property free of cost without paying anything. In the said circumstances, this M.J.C. petition is dismissed.

The learned trial court is directed to expedite the proceeding of eviction suit and if the defendant-petitioner has not complied the order and his defence is struck off then the suit must proceed as such and should be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned court below immediately. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)