the suit was eventually taken up for ex parte hearing on 1 7 1967.
it was number a case of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
the high companyrt rejected some of the companytentions raised of behalf of the defendant to challenge the legality of the order made under section 1 1 a of the act as also the order striking out his defence as against ejectment.
to safeguard the interest of the defendant the companyrt directed that the plaintiffs would number withdraw the amounts deposited in pursuance of the order made under section 1 1 a of the act until the disposal of the suit.
appeal by special leave from the judgment decree dated the 17th september 1969 of the patna high companyrt in appeal from appellate decree number 262 of 1969.
but it has taken the view following the full bench decision of the patna high companyrt in the case of mahabir ram v. shiva shanker prasad and other 1 that since the defendant had number admitted the plaintiffs to be his 16 annas landlord there was a denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the order striking out the defence is against ejectment of the defendant qua a.i.r.
the defendant had admitted that he was the tenant under the plaintiffs but was merely asserting that there were some more landlords of the premises in question.
he supported their case in toto including their claim that they were the absolute owners of the building of which the defendant was the tenant.
at the ex parte hearing plaintiff number 3 examined as plaintiffs witness number 1.
hence his defence as against ejectment was struck out by an order of the trial companyrt made on 8 7 1964.
purshottam chatterjee and h. k. puri for the appellants.
some other pleas were also raised to resist the suit for eviction.
the defendant was carrying on the business in the assumed name of liberty company which was number any legal entity or a person different from the defendant.
the latter went up in appeal which was dismissed by subordinate judge first court patna on 21 4 1969.
all arguments raised on behalf of the defendant appellant to challenge the ex parte decree failed.
the defence set up by the defendant that he was number the tenant but the tenant was liberty company was a mere pretence.
the defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiffs under section 11a of the act on the ground that besides them there were other landlords of the building in question.
1968 patna 415 the tenant had denied the title of the plaintiffs and set up a title in himself.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 425 of 1970.
the defendant in his defence took the plea that he was number the tenant of the premises the tenant was liberty company and that the plaintiffs were number the absolute owners thereof as the decree for partition had been set aside in a first appeal filed in the patna high companyrt there were others who also were the landlords.
the defendant wanted to obstruct the hearing of the suit proceeding ex parte but failed.
plaintiffs wanted to evict the defendant on the ground of number payment of rent breach of the companyditions of the tenency and on account of their bonafide personal requirements of the suit premises.
it may also be added that the learned munsif in.
a learned judge of that companyrt sitting singly allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the trial companyrt for a fresh trial and decision after allowing opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence in the light of the judgment of the high companyrt.
but an order under section 11a of the act was made against the defendent by the trial companyrt on 6 2 1964.
his order dated 8 7 1964 striking out the defence which order was companyfirmed by a bench of the high companyrt in civil revision number 824 of 1964 decided on 21 4 1964 bad pointed out on the basis of the defendants statements in his written statement as also in his rejoinder to the plaintiffs petition under section 11a of the act that the defendant had admitted that he was paying rent to the plaintiffs and had recognised them to be their landlords.
on 18 12 1963 the plaintiffs filed a petition under section 1 1 a of the bihar buildings lease rent and eviction companytrol act 1947 hereinafter called the act for directing the defendant to pay the arears of rent as also the current and future rent.
he preferred second appeal number 262/1969 in the high court of judicature at patna.
the plaintiffs appellants challenge the propriety and legality of the high companyrt judgment passed in the second appeal.
1006 tenant companyld number prevent him from companytesting the suit on the question of title.
the striking out of the defence on 8 7 1964 had the effect of striking out all defence raised by the defendant qua tenant including his defence that the plaintiffs alone being companysharer landlords were number entitled to maintain the suit for eviction.
in the case of mahabir ram a.i.r.
in the instant case the plea of the defendant has been that the plaintiffs being landlords of the suit premises for a moiety of share companyld number alone claim a decree for eviction against him.
1968 patna 415.
the suit was instituted on 27 9 1962.
the munsif third companyrt patna believed the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs and passed on ex parte decree directing eviction of the defendant.
the high companyrt has also number thought it fit to remit the case back because of this defence.
135/ per month.
according to the case of the plaintiffs the defendant had been inducted as a monthly tenant of the premises on a rent of rs.
the defendant defaulted in compliance with the order.
b. datar and d. n. mukherjee for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by untwalia j. this appeal by the plaintiffs filed by special leave of this companyrt against the defendant respondent arises out of a suit for eviction instituted by the former against the latter from the suit premises situated in the town of patna.
subsequently as a result of a decree in a parititon suit between the plaintiffs and 1005 their companysharers the property was allotted to the former and they became the absolute owners thereof.
