D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the Munsif, Ghatsila in Title Suit No. 5/1996 whereby the defence of the petitioner/defendant was struck off under the provisions of Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as follows: A Title Suit No. 5/1996 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking eviction of the petitioner/defendant under the grounds envisaged under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The petitioner had appeared in the suit and had filed his written statement. Thereafter a petition under Section 15 of the Act was filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction upon the respondents for depositing the monthly rent.
(3.) THE trial court, after hearing the parties and considering the matter, passed an order directing the defendant/petitioner to deposit the monthly rent within the period stipulated in the order. Such deposit, according to the established practice, was to be made through Treasury Challan. It further appears that on the ground that the petitioner/defendant had defaulted in depositing the monthly rents, the plaintiff had filed a petition before the Court below seeking an order for striking off the defence of the defendant. The defendant/petitioner was given opportunity to file his rejoinder to the plaintiff's petition. The counsel for both the parties were heard and thereafter by the impugned order, learned trial court had struck off the defence of the defendant/petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned trial court has not considered the petitioner's prayer for condoning the delay, if any, in depositing the monthly rent. It has also not considered the fact that as per earlier practice, the plaintiff, who lives in Kolkata, used to occasionally visit Jamshedpur to collect rent from the petitioner/defendant and the arrears of rent accumulated for months together, used to be collected in one lump -sum by the landlord. It is further submitted that the learned court below has also not considered the fact that the petitioner being an aged ailing man, could not possibly attend the court regularly in order to ensure the deposits of the rent promptly every month.;