JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:— The dispute in the present appeal by special leave is in regard to certain. premises in the town of Ranchi in Bihar which belongs to the appellants and in which a cinema is running. The contesting respondents have been occupying the property under a registered lease for a period of 20 years which expired on 31-7-1971. They served a notice on the appellants on 16-7-1971 claiming the right to continue in possession after 31-7-1971 as tenants from month to month. The appellants did not accept the claim and filed before Munsif, Ranchi a case purporting to be an application under S. 12 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents contested the application and raised several points in defence which were rejected by the learned Munsif. The appellants application was allowed and an appeal therefrom filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The respondents, then, moved the Patna High Court in its revisional jurisdiction inter alia, contending that the appellants application under S. 12 of the Act before the Munsif was not maintainable. The plea was accepted by the High Court and the decision of the court below was set aside.

2. According to the appellants case the property earlier belonged to M/s. Ganapathi Properties (Pvt.) Limited; the predecessor in title of the appellants. The company had granted the lease in favour of one S. N. Ganguli who on his death was succeeded by his legal representatives. There was due attornment of the tenancy and the lessees were liable to vacate the premises on 31-7-1971. Their further case of induction of some of the responents as sub-tenants has been disbelieved and in view of the findings of fact in the case, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect now.

3. Apart from pleading that the application under S. 12 was not maintainable and the allegations contained therein were incorrect, the respondents also stated that the heirs of late S. N. Ganguli had formed a partnership, as a result of which a new month to month tenancy was created, and the respondents, therefore, were not liable to eviction. The parties differed on several questions of fact which, in view of the findings of the trial court and the appellate court, are not necessary to be detailed. The parties led full evidence, both oral and documentary, on the disputed issues and after an elaborate trial the learned Munsif accepted the appellants case that they are the successors in interest of the lessor company, and the legal representatives of late S. N. Ganguli the original lessee continued as tenants under the lease after due attornment and were liable to eviction after the expiry of the lease period on 31-7-1971. The court accordingly directed the respondents to vacate the premises.

4. On appeal by the respondents. the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi agreed with the findings of the learned Munsif on merits and concluded in paragraph 48 of the judgment thus:-

"Therefore, from the facts stated above it appears that the present landlords and tenants are the heirs and successors of the original lessor and the lessee respectively. That being so, according to the terms of the deed of lease (Ext. 4) I have no hesitation in saying that the deed of lease (Ext. 4) is subsisting and the parties are having the relationship of lessors and lessees and also landlords and tenants respectively. No month to month tenancy had been created."

He, however, modified the decision of the trial court in so far the learned Munsif had directed that his order would be executed and the respondents would be evicted from the premises on their failure to vacate within the time allowed. The learned Judicial Commissioner confined his decision to deciding the issues between the parties and granting one months time to the respondents (appellants before him) for vacating the premises and further held that the appellants would have to make anot