Chandra Kishore Prasad vs Mohan Chaudhary and Others

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 17.6.2009 passed in Eviction Suit No. 23 of 2000 by learned Munsif East, Muzaffarpur whereby the court below has rejected the petitioner''s prayer to file written statement.

It seems that the Eviction Suit was filed in the year 2000 on the ground of personal necessity by the respondents in which father of the petitioner was impleaded as defendant. It was the plea of the plaintiff in the suit that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, Eswar Chand Prasad, father of the petitioner. He died in the year 2006 and in his place his three sons including the present petitioner were substituted. It further appears from the pleadings in the writ application that vide an order dated 25.4.2008, as the defendants failed to deposit current rent from the year 2002 to 2008, they were debarred from filing of the written statement. It further appears that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the other brothers of the present petitioner, filed a Civil Revision application before this court vide Civil Revision No. 396/2004 which was dismissed on 19.2.2009.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he learnt about the case only in the year 2009 and thereafter he took steps for filing of written statement which was wrongly rejected by the court below.

In an eviction suit, the only dispute which is to be adjudicated upon is as to whether there exists/existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the plaintiff had the necessity to occupy the premises for his personal use.

In the present case, this is admitted position that petitioner had no concern with the premises in which a shop was being run by the petitioner''s father. The petitioner, according to his own showing, has been residing in Purnia for last 25 years. The contention of the petitioner that he was absolutely not aware of the suit filed in the year 2000 cannot be believed. This has to be kept in mind that his two brothers had approached this court against the order passed by the court below by which they were debarred from filing written statement, unsuccessfully.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is dispute over property between the two brothers who had earlier approached this court and the present petitioner and if the petitioner is not allowed to file his written statement, the other brothers would take advantage of such situation.

Such submission cannot be accepted for the reason that such dispute cannot be considered in eviction suit. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.