P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision filed by the defendant under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) THE plaintiff, the landlord of a building, sued the defendant invoking Section 11(1)(e) of the Act. The case of the plaintiff was that on 6-8-1997, an agreement of lease for a term of 11 months was executed reserving a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. The lease was for a fixed term. On expiry of the term, on oral request, the defendant refused to vacate the building. A notice dated 8-8-1998 was sent calling upon him to vacate and the defendant, having not vacated, the suit was filed. It appears that the defendant was not paying the current rent or a portion of the rent that was in arrears. Therefore, on 30-6-2000, the Court passed an order calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. The amount was not paid within the time originally fixed. The Court extended the time on more than three occasions. Ultimately finding that the defendant was not complying with the order dated 30-6-2000, the Court struck off the defence of the defendant on 26-9-2000. It proceeded to record the evidence of the landlord as P.W.1. It did not permit the defendant to cross-examine the witness since the defence has been struck oft. It proceeded to order eviction on finding that the term of lease had expired. It is this decree that is challenged in this revision in view of the fact that Section 14(8) of the Act precludes the filing of an appeal against such a decree and provides only for a revision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that there was no formal order in terms of Section 15 of the Act directing the defendant to deposit the rent in arrears and there was also no specific finding on the quantum of rent in arrears. But on scrutinizing the proceedings of the trial Court, it is clear that at no point of time, a dispute was raised on behalf of the defendant that the rent was not in arrears. In fact, it is seen that no objection was even filed to the application under Section 15 of the Act filed by the plaintiff. In that context, an order was made on 30-6-2000 directing the defendant to pay the rent in arrears. On the materials available, I find no infirmity in that order. There is also no dispute that subsequent to the order dated 30-6-2000, the rent in arrears was not tendered or paid. Therefore, it is seen that on 26-9-2000, the trial Court struck out defence of the defendant. It appears to me the court below had given ample opportunities to the defendant to pay the rent in arrears and to properly defend the proceeding. The defendant, in my view, had failed to take advantage of such an opportunity and it is not open to him now to contend that no proper procedure was followed by the trial Court.;