- (1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.12.2012 passed by Sub Judge -1, Palamau at Daltonganj in Eviction Case No. 01 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the defence of petitioners has been struck off and his application for filing the additional written statement was also dismissed. By the same order, the learned court below had allowed the plaintiffs' application for withdrawal of the amount which the petitioners have deposited.
(2.) IT appears that the learned court below has passed an order under section 15 of the Bihar Building ( Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred as BBC Act) and directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1,02,000/ - at a time towards the arrear of rent. The petitioner was further directed to deposit current rent @ Rs. 3000/ - per month and also directed to pay future rent @ Rs. 3000/ - on 15th of each month. It appears that against the said order, petitioners filed a writ application in this Court bearing WPC No. 5093 of 2010 which was withdrawn on 19.11.2011. It is relevant to mention that during the pendency of writ application, order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the learned court below has not been stayed. It appears that after withdrawal of the case, petitioners had not complied the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2010. Thus on the application of plaintiffs/respondents, learned court below on 09.04.2012 directed the petitioners to comply the order otherwise necessary order will be passed. Thereafter on 27.04.2012, petitioners deposited Rs. 10,000/ - towards the arrear of rent, which is part compliance of order dated 23.07.2010. Thereafter on 11.05.2012, petitioners deposited Rs. 92,000/ - towards the arrear of rent, then on 23.06.2012 Rs. 96,000/ - deposited towards the current rent. It is stated that thereafter petitioners are paying future rent as per the direction by the learned trial court. The learned court below by order dated 03.12.2012 struck off the defence of petitioners on the ground that the petitioners deposited the rent after the expiry of stipulated period without giving proper explanation. The learned court below further rejected the application for filing of additional written statement. The learned court below further directed the plaintiffs/respondents to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners towards the rent.
(3.) SRI Manjul Prasad, appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner properly explained the delay as to why the amount not deposited within the time stipulated. He submits that just after passing of the impugned order, petitioners had gone for the treatment of his ailing mother. Thereafter he went to his native village and remain there because of flood in different rivers. He further submits that thereafter the petitioners has filed writ application in this court against the order dated 23.07.2010 which was ultimately withdrawn on 19.11.2011. Thereafter in compliance of order of the court below dated 09.04.2012, petitioners deposited part of the amount on 27.04.2012, 15.05.2012 and on 23.06.2012. Accordingly, Sri Prasad submits that petitioners have given proper explanation for delay in depositing the amount. Thus, he submits that the judgment of this Court reported in 2004(3)JLJR 300 and 1992(2) PLJR 778 has no application in this case.;