1. This second appeal raises a question of interpretation of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Civil P.C.

2. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for eviction from the premises in suit against the defendant-appellant and also for a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,824.54 on account of arrears of rent and electric charges. In the said suit, summons was issued to the appellant who appeared in the trial Court on 25th Feb., 1985, and filed an application for time to file written statement which was allowed and the appellant was granted time to file his written statement till 23rd Mar., 1985, on which date also, no written statement was filed and, again, an application for time was filed on behalf of the appellant. The learned Court below granted time to the defendant to file written statement till 30th April, 1985. On 30th April, 1985, neither any application for time was filed nor any step therefor was taken. The learned trial Court below thereafter proceeded to pass a decree in favour of the respondent and against the appellant, purported to be in terms of O.VIII, R.10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. According to the learned trial Court, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree in the suit in terms of O.VIII, R.10 of the Civil P.C., as the defendant did not file his written statement during the prescribed period.

5. The appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment aforementioned preferred an appeal in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 29 of 1985 and the same was eventually transferred to the Court of the 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, for disposal, who, by his judgment dt. 6th Dec., 1986, dismissed the said appeal.

6. This second appeal arises in the aforementioned circumstances.

7. By an order dt. 2nd Mar., 1987, while admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court.

"When the time is granted by the Court to defendant to file written statement, whether O.8, R.10 of the Civil P.C. shall apply."

However, by the said order, an opportunity was given to the appellant to frame other substantial question of law at the time of hearing.

8. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has raised another question of law at the time of hearing of this appeal which being a pure question of law, I permitted him to raise which is as follows :-

"Whether in view of S.11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, which requires a satisfaction on the part of the Court before it pronounces its judgment of eviction with regard to the existence of one or other of the factors mentioned in various clauses contained therein, the provisions of O.VIII, R.10 of the Civil P.C. can be said to have any application."

9. Order VIII, R.10 of the Civil P.C. reads as follows : -

"When any party from whom a written statement is required under R.1 or 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up."

10. From a perusal of the aforementioned rule, it would be evident that the power has been conferred on the Court under this Rule to pronounce the judgment when a written statement demanded by the Court from the defendant has not been presented within the time permitted or fixed by the court. Earlier some of the High Courts were of the view that O.VIII, R.10 of the civil P.C. applies in cases where the parties fail to produce written statement in terms of O.VIII, Rr.1 and 9 of the Civil P.C.; whereas, some of the High Courts took a contrary view and held that the said rule had the application only in a case where the written statement required under O.VIII, R.9 of the civil P.C. was not presented by the defendant wi