Judgement

NATARAJAN, J. :- This appeal by special leave by the tenants is directed against, the judgment of a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in a Second Appeal against Appellate Decree No. 51 of 1982. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord (respondent herein) and restored the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court against the appellants herein on grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the leased premises for the business needs of the landlord.

2. The circumstances under which the suit came to be filed and the contentions of the parties may be summarised as below.

3. One Babu Lal who died on 14-11-73 and the respondent were brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law. The joint family was the owner of a non-residential building in the G.B. Road, Gaya. One room in the said building was given on rent in the year 1932 to one Dr. Ramachandra, the husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant for running a medical shop known as Punjab Dental and Opticals Works. The joint family has been running its business in the other portions of the building. The rent was fixed at Rs. 16 per month. Over the years the rent came to be increased from Rs. 16 to Rs. 60 per month. It would appear that. the rent was increased to Rs. 20 in 1943, to Rs. 25 in 1946, to Rs. 30 in 1947, to Rs. 32 in 1951, to Rs. 35 in 1963, to Rs. 40 in 1967, to Rs. 50 in 1970 and finally to Rs. 60 in 1971. Dr. Ramachandra, the tenant died in or about 1960 and thereafter his wife, the first appellant came to be recognised as the tenant and rent receipts were issued in her name. Before the Trial Court it was sought to be contended that the second appellant had become the tenant after the demise of his father and as such the notice of termination of tenancy issued to the first appellant was not an effective and valid notice. The contention was repelled by the Trial Court and that finding has not been challenged before the Appellate Court and the High Court.

4. As already stated Babu Lal the Karta of the family died on 14-11-73. Consequent on his death the respondent herein became the Karta of the family as the senior-most male member of the joint family. The respondent issued a notice on 12-6-74 terminating the tenancy with effect from 30-6-74 and called upon the first appellant to surrender possession of the leased shop from 1-7-74. It was the case of the respondent that the first appellant had committed default in payment of rent from November 1973 onwards and furthermore the leased portion was required for expansion of the joint family business carried on in the other portion of the building. As the appellants failed to deliver possession a suit for eviction was filed under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a decree for eviction against the appellants. A sum of Rs. 540 was also claimed in the suit as arrears of rent.

5. The appellants contested the suit raising various defences. The principal defences were that the respondent was not the Karta of the family and one Ram Prakash Gupta, the eldest son of deceased Babu Lal was the Karta, that rent was tendered to him after the death of Babu Lal but the said Ram Prakash Gupta demanded rent at Rs. 150 per month and refused to receive the rent that was tendered, that thereupon the rent was sent by money order but it was refused and as such there was no default in payment of rent. It was alternatively contended that even if there had been default in payment of rent it would not afford a cause of action for seeking eviction because the original rent of Rs. 16 had been illegally raised to Rs. 60 per month in contravention of the terms of the Act, that as such the appellants were entitled to seek adjustment of the excess payments made by them towards the alleged arrears of rent and consequently there can be no arrears of rent under l