Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Zaffar Hussain
Versus
Mahabir Prasad
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 32 of 1956 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 24, 1956
BIHAR BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SECTION 11(1)(A) AND (B) - SECTION 12(1) AND (2) - INTERPRETATION - TENANCY - MONTHLY TENANCY - EXPIRY OF LEASE - EXTENSION OF TIME - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 12(1) - LIABILITY TO EVICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the landlord, filed a petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (the Act) seeking eviction of the opposite party, the tenant, from the leased premises on grounds of non-payment of rent, subletting, and expiry of the lease period. The Controller ordered eviction on the ground of subletting, but the Collector and the Additional Commissioner reversed the order, finding that subletting was not established. The petitioner challenged these orders in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the tenant was not a month-to-month tenant within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, as the lease was for a fixed period of time and the rent was payable monthly. Therefore, the tenant was liable to be evicted under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 12(1), which required the tenant to give notice to the landlord of their intention to extend the lease period.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was a month-to-month tenant within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 2. Whether the tenant was liable to be evicted under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance with Section 12(1).
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "month-to-month tenant" in Section 2(e) of the Act requires the tenant to hold a lease from month to month or for an unspecified period. In this case, the lease was for a fixed period of time, and therefore the tenant was not a month-to-month tenant. 2. Section 11(1)(b) of the Act provides that a tenant other than a month-to-month tenant is liable to be evicted on the expiry of the tenancy period, for non-payment of rent, or for breach of the conditions of the tenancy. In this case, the tenant failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 12(1), which required them to give notice to the landlord of their intention to extend the lease period. Therefore, the tenant was liable to be evicted under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, and restored the order of eviction passed by the Controller.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner has moved this Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ quashing the order dated the 5th November, 1955, of the Additional Commissioner, and the order dated the 30th August 1955, of the Collector, passed in a proceeding under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The opposite party No. 1 has shewn cause, and filed a counter-affidavit.
2. The petitioner is the landlord of old holding No. 2B/1 and new holding No. 17, circle No. 22, situated on the Ashoka Raj Path, in Mahalla Muradpur in the town of Patna Opposite party No. 1 took a portion of this holding on lease for a fixed period commencing from the 9th April, 1949. to the 30th January, 1954, under a registered Sataua Pataua Kerayanama Patta dated the 15th June, 1949, on a monthly rental of Rs. 215/-.
Out of this monthly rental of Rs. 215/-, a sum of Rs. 200.00 was to be set off towards the loan of Rs. 10,000/-, which had been taken by the petitioner from opposite party No. 1; under the above lease. Out of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 8,000.00 carried interest, and Rs. 2,000.00 carried no interest. The parties; therefore, contracted that Rs. 200/-would be set off towards the principal and the interest every month, and, the balance Rs. 15/-would be paid by opposite party No. 1 on the 9th of every month to the petitioner.
There was a further stipulation that on the 30th January, 1954, as the entire loan with interest would be satisfied, opposite party No. 1, on expiry of the above date, without any objection, shall vacate the house, and, give seer possession to the petitioner. There was also a stipulation,, in the aforesaid lease, that opposite party No. 1 had no right, and, would not, in any case, sublet the building to anybody.
Opposite party No. 1 was carrying on his business in the leased portion of the building of the petitioner in the name of Nagpore Cloth House.
3 The term of the lease expired on the 30th January, 1954, and, opposite party No. 1 did not seek any extension of the time limited by the lease, under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, served a notice to quit on opposite party No. 1 on the 11th January, 1954. It was stated in the notice that the rent for November and December, 1954, had not been paid, and, therefore, if opposite party No. 1 did not vacate the house on the 31st January, 1954, he would be considered a trespasser, and liable for damages.
4. A reply to the aforesaid notice was sent by opposite party No. 1 on the 28th January, 1954, in which it was stated that he had been advised by his lawyer to remit Rs. 30.00 to the petitioner by money order, and, it was further stated that the petitioner had executed three handnotes, namely, on the 3rd January, 1953, for Rs. 500/-, on the 17th March for Rs. 458/13/-, and on the 9th July, 1953, for Rs. 278/4/9, each carrying interest at 9 per cent, per mensem, and, therefore, the amount of these three handnotes would be adjusted towards rent from the month of February, 1954. Opposite party No. 1 sent Rs. 30.00 by money order on the 2Sth January, 1954, but it was refused by the petitioner, as it was sent after the notice to quit was served by the petitioner.
5. Opposite party No. 1 on the 8th February, 1954, started a shop known as Nagpur Dresses in the same portion of the holding of the petitioner, which was in lease of opposite party No. 1, and shifted his original shop, known as Nagpur Cloth House, to another place, and, thereby, in contravention of the lease, according to the petitioner, sublet the building without his consent.
6. The petitioner, therefore, on the 18th June, 1954, made an application under Sec.11, Clause (1), of the Act, before the Controller for eviction of opposite party No. 1 from the lease-hold on three grounds: ,
(1) That the opposite party had defaulted to pay the rent of the house from November, 1953, to May,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
