IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1297 of 2007 With C.R. No. 788 of 2008 With C.R.No.1591 of 2008 DEVCHANDRA MISHRA Versus SRI KAMESHWARI PRIYA POOR HOME ----------- 3 19.09.2008 All these three Civil Revision applications arise out of Eviction Suit No.4 of 2003. In Civil Revision application No. 1297 of 2007, the defendant-tenant-petitioner has assailed the order dated 7.5.2007, directing him to deposit the rent under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. In Civil Revision No. 788 of 2008, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.4.2008 by which his defence against ejectment had been struck off on account of non- compliance of the aforementioned order dated 7.5.2007. Civil Revision No. 1591 of 2008 has been filed against the order dated 21.8.2008 refusing to recall the order dated 7.8.2008 whereby and whereunder the evidence of the petitioner has closed. It has to be recorded that Civil Revision No. 1297 of 2007 and Civil Revision No. 788 of 2008 were heard earlier and orders were reserved on 17.7.2008 and before the order 2 could be pronounced the Civil Revision No. 1591 of 2008 was filed on 16.9.2008 and was heard yesterday i.e. on 18.9.2008. In course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Civil Revision No. 1591 of 2008 had made the following submissions. “Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on taking instructions from the petitioner, has submitted before this Court that the petitioner is ready to comply the order passed under Section 15 of the B.B.C. Act provided he is given three months time to clear the entire dues”. It would thus be clear that the petitioner-the tenant has ultimately realized the clear position in law as with regard to the liability of payment of rent by the tenant during the pendency of the eviction suit. Though such realization is quite belated, but then they say “Better late than never”. This Court would, therefore, hold that a tenant who has realized his mistake, is required to be given an opportunity for contesting the eviction suit on merit. These three impugned orders are in fact making of the petitioner himself. Had he complied the order passed under Section 15 of the Act by depositing the rent, he would not have been subjected to subsequent order of striking off his defence and the further 3 order of closure of his evidence. It is true that the petitioner was awaiting the result of Civil Revision No.1297 of 2007 wherein he had assailed the order dated 7.5.2007 passed under Section 15 of the Act directing him to deposit the arrears and current rent and in fact it was during the pendency of the said Civil Revision application that when he had not deposited the rent, the Court below had passed the order dated 19.4.2008 striking off the defence of the petitioner against his ejectment which was made subject matter of Civil Revision No. 788 of 2008. In fact, further order of the Court below closing the evidence of the petitioner by the order dated 7.8.2008 and refusing to recall the said order dated 7.8.2008 by the impugned order dated 21.8.2008 in Civil Revision No. 1591 of 2008 were again passed while the petitioner was awaiting the result of Civil Revision No. 1297 of 2007 and 788 of 2008. Though, the Court below was wholly justified in passing all the aforementioned impugned orders in absence of any stay order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1297 of 2007 and Civil Revision No. 788 of 2008, the hope and belief of the petitioner that he could succeed either in or both of the aforementioned Civil Revision application, cannot be said to be unreasonable and unjustified. Under such circumstances, this Court would dispose of all the aforementioned Civil Revision applications with the 4 following directions :- I. The petitioner must deposit the entire arrears and current rent under Section 15 of the Act in terms of the impugned order date 7.5.2007 within a period of three months in three equal installments. Such arrears of rent up to the month of September, 2008 must be paid on 18th of October 2008, 18th of November 2008 and 18th of December 2008 respectively, punctually and positively. II. On making payment of entire arrears of rent up to the month of September, 2008 as also current rent of the month of October, 2008 onwards on month to month basis beginning from the month of November, 2008 onwards, the Court below will direct the plaintiff-opposite party to produce his witnesses for cross-examination by the petitioner. Such cross-examination of the witness of the plaintiffs must be completed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date on which the Court below would direct the petitioner to do so. III. After completing the cross-examination of the witness of the plaintiff-opposite party the petitioner must complete his oral and 5 documentary evidence within a period of two months of closure of evidence of the plaintiff. IV. The arguments in the Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2003 must be completed in all respect within one month of closure of evidence by the defendant- petitioner and the judgment in the Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2003 must be pronounced within one month of completion of the arguments. V. The defendant-petitioner would be also liable to pay a cost of Rs. 3000/- to compensate the loss of the plaintiff-opposite party who had already completed their evidence but would now be forced to recall his witness for affording cross- examination by the petitioner. This Court would make it clear that in the event of any further default on the part of the petitioner either in payment of arrears or current rent under Section 15 of the Act or in the hearing/argument of the suit as directed above in this order, the Court below would be at liberty to proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions these three Civil Revision applications are disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)