The court has a duty to consider the facts and law before passing an eviction order, even after deemed admission of the tenant's statements in the plaint.

NAGENDRA RAI, J.

1. The tenant-petitioner has filed the present application under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 30-4-1993 passed by the learned Munsif, Darbhanga, in Eviction Suit No. 31/92, by which he has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-opposite parties for eviction against the petitioner and directed him to vacate the suit premises within the period fixed in the order, failing which the plaintiffs would be entitled to get the decree executed against the defendant through the process of the court.

2. The factual foundation essential for the disposal of the present application is that the plaintiffs-opposite parties filed the aforesaid suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity.

3. The plaintiffs"case, in brief, is that they have their house on holding No. 34, Ward No. 10 in Mohalla Jurawan Singh in the district of Darbhanga. They are living with their family members in the said house and have constructed some shops on the southern side and let out the same to different tenants. They have also constructed one Ekchari"with tiled roof and let out the same to the defendant-petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 200.00 with Sahan. Plaintiff No. 2, who is son of plaintiff No. 1 is unemployed and he intends to start a business in plastic and plastic goods and the suit building is suitable place of starting the said business. The plaintiffs requested the defendant-petitioner to vacate the said building and on their refusal filed the present suit.

4. As the suit for eviction was filed on the ground of personal necessity, the procedure as provided under S. 14 of the aforesaid Act was followed. The court ordered for issuance of summons in ordinary course as well as under registered cover. Thereafter, it appears that the valid service reports were received in the court. After the receipt of the valid service reports the plaintiffs made a prayer before the court on 3-3-1993 to proceed with the suit ex parte as the defendant had not appeared in spite of service of summons. On the same date the court below fixed the suit for ex parte hearing on 31/03/1993. On 31/03/1993, the case was again adjourned to 22-4-1993. On that date a prayer was made by the plaintiffs to pass an order in terms of Sec. 14(4) of the Act, which was allowed and the learned Munsif heard the counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties and passed the impugned order decreeing the plaintiffs"suit in their favour on the ground that the defendant had not appeared in spite of service of summons and as such he would be deemed to have admitted the claim of eviction.

5. In this case, though the vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties but no counsel appeared when the case was taken up for disposal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in this case the order of eviction is contrary to law in as much as the court below has passed the order of eviction only on the basis of deemed admission by the petitioner of the statement made in the suit by the landlord without considering the question as to whether on the basis of the facts deemed to have been admitted by the petitioner, the landlord-opp. party is entitled to an order of eviction.

7. The question for determination is as to whether after the deemed admission of the statements made by the landlord in the suit by the tenant due to his non-appearance after serivce of summons or due to refusal to grant leave to contest the suit as provided under Sec. 14(4) of the Act, the court has no option but to pass a decree on the basis of such statements or it has discretion to consider as to whether even on the basis of those admitted statements the plaintiff is entitled to an order/ decree for eviction or not.

8. To appreciate the point, it would be apt to quote Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 14 of the B.B.C. Act, which runs as follows:-

"The tenant on whom summons is dul