A legal representative can file an additional written statement raising all pleas which the deceased defendant had or might have raised, except those which are personal to the deceased defendant. Additionally, the defendant should seek impleadment as a defendant in his independent capacity before raising new pleas.

( 1 ) IN this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 17-5-2004 passed by the Additional Munsif at Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit no. 15 of 1997 whereby the Court below has refused to accept the additional written statement filed by the defendant No. 2 - petitioner and also the order dated 19-2-2004 rejecting the prayer for recalling the plaintiffs witnesses for their cross-examination and directing the defendant petitioner to produce their evidences.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the substituted defendant No. 2 in the said suit. The said suit for evietion was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against M/s. Jethmal Satyanarayan in the Court of the Munsif praying a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default in making payment of rent under the provisions of section 11 (1) (d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act or the B. B. C. Act ). The plaintiffs case is : that he is the landlord and the defendant is a tenant in a portion of the suit premises consisting of two shop rooms. In the year 1987, the House Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent for the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 1759/- per month under the provisions of section 5 of the said Act. Thereafter, by mutual consent the monthlyirent was enhanced to Rs. 2,150/- per month from 01-11 -1990 and again to Rs. 2,250/- per month from 01-10-1992 and again Rs. 2,500/- per month from 01-11-1993. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant defaulted in payment of monthly rent from time to time and has made himself liable for eviction on the ground of default in making payment of rent.

( 3 ) THE sole defendant M/s. Jethmal satyanarayan through its proprietor. Satyanarayan Bajaj appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim. It was stated that the plaintiff went on coercing the defendant to enhance the rent at an exorbitant rate from Rs, 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/-per month and also to pay PAGRI (Salami)to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the demand of the plaintiff being illegal, the defendant refused to accept the same. The plaintiff thereafter maliciously filed the suit for eviction. The defendant claimed that he never defaulted in payment of rent and there was no ground for eviction.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the sole proprietor of the defendant firm, satyanarayan Bazaz died and in his place his legal heirs were substituted as defendants, including the petitioner. He was impleaded as defendant No. 2. The petitioner after his appearance, filed an additional written statement dated 11-02-2004 contesting the claim of the plaintiff. In variation of the original written statement, the petitioner set up a case of independent tenancy right of Ram Karan Bazaz, another son of Satyanarayan Bazaz, over the portion of the suit premises which was not pleaded in the written statement of the deceased defendant. The said new additional plea of the defendant No. 2-petitioner was objected to by the plaintiff-respondent by filing an application dated 19. 02. 2004 wherein it was prayed to ignore the same as the said written statement sought to set up a new case in addition to what was pleaded in the written statement filed by his predecessor in interest late Satyanarayan Bazaz.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff-respondent further prayed that the legal representative of the deceased defendant including the defendant No. 2-petitioner can not be allowed to lead any further evidence contrary to the pleadings of the original defendant and for directing them to proceed with the litigation from the stage of death of the deceased defendant - Satyanarayan Bazaz, i. e. , the stage of further evidence. The defendant-petitioner had filed rejoinder, inter alia, stating that the petitioner has right to file additional written statement taking all the grounds including what was left by the deceased defendant.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned court