PRABHA SHANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner in the civil revision as also in the writ application has questioned the validity of the order of the Additional Munsif, Patna City, by which his defence has been struck off for non-compliance of the order to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent of the premises allegedly occupied by him as a tenant and the validity of S.15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, to the extent it has empowered the Court to order for deposit of rent in arrears of the period prior to the institution of the suit besides the arrears after the institution of the suit and rent month by month at such rate as may be determined and also in that part where it has provided that as a consequence of the striking of the defence against ejectment the Court shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the landlords witnesses. He has also questioned the validity of S.14 of the Act on the ground that the procedure prescribed therein with respect to the suits for eviction on the expiry of the period of lease or personal necessity is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Respondent No. 3 in the writ case and the opposite party in the civil revision, who is the plaintiff in the title eviction suit No. 63/85 1/87 pending in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Munsif, Patna City, has filed the suit alleging that the defendant-petitioner is the tenant of holding No. 49 (old), 51 (new) of Municipal Survey Plot No. 79, Sheet No. 240, Ward No. 26 (old), 32 (new) in Circle No. 176, area 29 Karis less than 1 Katha on the monthly rental of Rs. 15 .00 according to the English Calendar.

3. According to the plaintiff-respondent-opposite party the tenant-petitioner had fallen in arrears of rent and on account of default in the payment of rent had become eligible for eviction, but for the reason that the house was urgently needed to meet the personal necessity, he instituted the suit for eviction on the ground specified in Cl.(c) of Sub-sec. (1) of S.11 of the Act. The petitioner, on receiving notice, appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. His case is that the house in question formerly belonged to the Jalane family of Patna City. His family was inducted into the house in question without any rent. Since it was Belagan before and later under the Jalans who were the landlord, the Municipal Board (as it then was) assessed tax at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per annum which the petitioner paid and later the Corporation assessed the tax at the rate of Rs. 36.00 per annum which he has been paying. He has contested the claim of the plaintiff-respondent-opp. party that the house in question was purchased by him from one Anar Dai Khandelia on 26-5-1984 and alleged that Anar Dai Khandelia had not acquired any title to the suit property.

4. In the suit taken up in accordance with S.14 of the Act, the plaintiff-respondent- opposite party filed a petition under S.14 thereof. The tenant petitioner contested the prayer to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent on various grounds. The learned Additional Munsif, however, ordered that the defendant-petitioner was required to pay the arrears and the current rent at the rate specified in the order. The defendant-petitioner acted in obedience of the said order, but defaulted after December, 1986. The plaintiff-respondent-opposite party then filed a petition on 27-8-87 praying therein to strike off the defence of the defendant-tenant-petitioner. The learned Additional Munsif has allowed the petition of the plaintiff-respondent-opposite party and struck off the defence of the tenant-petitioner against ejectment.

5. Tenants occupying buildings on rent in such cities, towns and urban agglomeration, which were notified as prescribed by law, were protected by the statutory umbrella of a Control Act in the year 1947. The 47 Act was a temporary Act c