On l0th day of February, 1997, an agreement to lease was executioned between the parties.
The respondent tenant sought for leave to defend under sub section 4 of Section 14 of the Act denying the landlord tenant relationship and submitting that the suit property was owned by one R.N. Chakraborty, whose title on his death had devolved upon his son, Dr. Rajat Chakraborty and from the latter the respondent had purchased the property under registered deed of sale dated 24th February, 1998.
The appellant, a widow and having undergone a kidney transplant, initiated an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 hereinafter the Act, for short .
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the tenant preferred a revision in the High Court which revision has been allowed by the learned Single Judge forming an opinion that a triable issue within the meaning of sub sections 4 and 5 of Section 14 of the Act did arise on the pleadings of the parties and, therefore, the leave to defend deserves to be granted to the respondent tenant.
2002 Supp 2 SCR 403 The following Order of the Court was delivered Leave granted.
According to the appellant, the respondent an employee of the appellant, was inducted into possession of the premises under an agreement of lease dated l0th February, 1997.
The grounds on which eviction is sough for are more than one and include the genuine requirement of the premises for landlords self occupation and the respondent being a defaulter in payment of rent.
Leave to defend was, therefore, refused.
He was examined on oath on 29th June, 1994 the Court of Munsif, Hazaribag.
The pleadings, affidavits and the documents available on record go to show that the respondent was an employee under the appellant.
The land having been purchased, the respondent went on to depose, the appellant companystructed two houses on the land surrounded by the boundary wall.
The learned Trial Court having taken into companysideration the pleadings of the parties, the companytents of the affidavits and the supporting documents formed an opinion that the pleas raised by the respondent tenant were false and frivolous and wholly unsustainable in law and hence numberprima fade case was made out worth companysideration for granting leave to defend.
In the year 1993, a title suit was filed by this very appellant against Rajat Chakraborty and therein this very respondent had appeared as a witness for the plaintiff.
In the submission of the respondent, the pleading raised a triable issue and, therefore, leave to defend ought to have been granted.
