Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Three different orders passed in Eviction Suit No.25 of 2011 have been challenged by the petitioner-defendants; primary order being order dated 16.02.2012 by which the defendants were declined leave to contest the suit. Subsequent orders have been passed on the applications filed by the defendants seeking recall of order dated 16.02.2012 and permission to file written statement.
(2.) Eviction Suit No.25 of 2011 was instituted for a decree of Khas possession over the Schedule-'A' premises after ejecting the defendants through process of the court from the suit premises. Suit schedule property comprises one shop on holding 8/228 at Guru Govind Singh Road, P.S. & District- Hazaribagh. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant no.1 approached her husband for tenancy of one shop for starting a business which was let out to him on monthly rental of Rs.150/- for which rent agreement dated 02.06.1995 was executed. It is not in dispute that summons was served upon the defendants on 20.01.2012 and they appeared in the suit on 27.01.2012. They filed an application on 16.02.2012 seeking time for filing written statement, however, the trial court declined permission for filing an affidavit as provided under section 14(4) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 on the ground that under Article 118 of the Limitation Act, affidavit seeking leave to contest must be filed within 10 days of service of summons. The suit was posted for the plaintiff's evidence. It is stated that on 02.03.2012, the plaintiff examined her witnesses and the suit was fixed for arguments on 05.03.2012. On that day the defendants filed an application seeking recall of order dated 16.02.2012. This application has been rejected by an order dated 07.05.2012 on the ground that the trial court has no power to recall the said order. The defendants filed another application on 06.06.2012 purportedly seeking leave for filing written statement. This application has also been rejected by the trial court on 17.07.2012. Aggrieved, the defendants have approached this Court.
(3.) Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the procedure under section 14(4) of the Rent Act, 2000 is different from the summary procedure under Order XXXVII CPC and while so, 10 days' time for filing an application seeking leave to defend cannot be imported into section 14(4) of the Rent Act. To fortify this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on decisions in Sachchidanand Shukla Vs. Sudha Sinha, 1998 1 PLJR 126 and Kailash Prasad Chouhan Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi, 1998 1 BLJR 740. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the procedure under Order XXXVII CPC can be resorted to only in cases of Hundies, Promissory Notes etc. and not in a case where the suit is instituted on the ground of default in payment of rent also.;