JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chaibasa in Miscellaneous Case No. 07/2012 arising out of Execution Case No. 03/2012 by which a petition filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the judgment debtor for dismissal of the execution case on the ground that the decree passed on compromised is non-executable, has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition read hereunder as –

A suit for eviction has been filed on the ground of Section 11(c) and (d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 2000) for seeking a decree of eviction against defendant, Jawahar Prasad Sao from the suit premises which is a house situated at Holding No. 1040, Chaibasa Town Khas Mahal Pplot No. 339 and 340 corresponding to New Survey Settlement Plot No. 333, 334 (a) (b) (c) under New Survey Khata No. 67 within Chaibasa Municipality Ward No. 7, Municial Holding No. 07/220 P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. The plaintiff namely, Narayan Mishra, the respondent herein, has also claimed arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the month of November, 2006 to August, 2007 amounting to Rs. 2,700/- and the same has been mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint.

The case of plaintiff (the respondent herein) is that the defendant (the petitioner herein) is a monthly tenant who used to pay rent to Late Radha Govind Mishra and after his death Binod Basini Devi used to receive the monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month. After the property was allotted to the plaintiff, Binod Basini Devi (mother of the plaintiff) issued a notice dated 09.11.2006 directing the defendant to pay rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff but defendant did not pay rent either to Binod Basini Devi or to plaintiff from the month of November, 2006 onwards. Therefore, he has become a defaulter and he has forfeited his right to remain as a tenant.

The further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff required suit premises for his bona fide personal necessity as he was residing in a rented house and the defendant has already constructed his house and is living there but suit premises has been kept under lock and key without any reason.

On service of notice, the defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement where his preliminary point of objection was that suit is not maintainable in its present form, plaint is not in accordance with the provision of Order VI Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaint has not been signed and verified in accordance with law as also the suit has been undervalued and is barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.

The main ground of the defendant is that the suit property was leased out jointly in the name of Radha Govind Mishra and Ram Lakhan Mishra in the year 1961. The defendant was inducted as a tenant by the grandfather of the plaintiff namely Raghunandan Mishra, who collected the rent from defendant during his life time. After his death, his son Radha Govind Mishra collected the rent from the defendant and after the death of Radha Goving Mishra, his widow namely, Smt. Binod Basini Devi is collecting monthly rent according to her convenience from the defendant and the present rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month which was being paid by the defendant to land lady Smt. Binod Basini Devi and Binod Basini Devi issued rent receipt in lieu of the rent received.

The further case of the defendant is that the plaintiff got a letter issued to defendant purported to be issue by his mother Binod Basini Devi with a direction to the defendant to pay rent for the