A lease for any purpose other than agricultural or manufacturing purposes is to be deemed a lease from month to month, which can be terminated by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy.

Kamla Sahai, J.

1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against a judgment of reversal.

2. Very shortly stated, the plaintiffs case is that he took settlement of holding No. 130A in Mina Bazar of Motihari town from Bettiah Raj, and built a tiled shop on it. On the 1st February, 1954, he let the shop to the defendant for a term of five years on a monthly rental of Rs. 8-8-0 under an unregistered kirayanama (exhibit 8). The period of lease has expired, and besides he gave notice to the defendant to quit. The defendant has also not paid rent for the period from January, 1958, to April, 1959. On these allegations, he prayed for a decree for eviction against the defendant and also for recovery of arrears of rent for the period mentioned above.

3. Briefly stated, the defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He also denies having executed the Kirayanama (Exhibit 8). His case further is that he took settlement of the holding in question from the Land Reforms Department of the Government of Bihar after the zamindari of Bettiah Raj vested in the State and that he built the shop on it.

4. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit dismissed it. The plaintiffs appeal was heard by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge of Motihari. He has arrived at the following findings:

(i) The plaintiff inducted the defendant as a tenant on the holding in question on the 1st February, 1954 and there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between them.

(ii) Having been inducted upon the land by the plaintiff, the defendant is estopped from challenging the plaintiffs title.

(iii) The allegation that the defendant took settlement of the holding in question from the State of Bihar is wrong because the Collector of Champaran, by his order dated the 4th February, 1959, definitely disallowed the defendants prayer for settlement of the holding with him,

(iv) Notices (exhibits 1 dated the 6th April, 1959, and 1(a) dated the 14th February, 1959), given by the plaintiff to the defendant to quit are invalid.

(v) The period of lease having expired, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction against the defendant, in spite of non-service of a valid notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(vi) By denying the title of the plaintiff, the defendant has incurred forfeiture under Sec.111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of this ground also the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction against the defendant.

5. On the above findings the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the appeal, and decreed the suit.

6. In an attempt to challenge findings Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) as enumerated above, the appellant filed an application in this Court to take the copy of a deed of lease executed by the Collector of Champaran in favour of the General Manager of the Bettiah Raj as additional evidence. For reasons which I have given separately, I have held that the document is irrelevant as its subject-matter has not been shown to be the same as Mina Bazar where the holding in dispute is situated. Mr. A. C. Roy, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, has not urged any other point against these three findings. They must, therefore, be accepted.

7. Mr. Gupteshwar Prasad, who has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, has not challenged finding No. (iv) above, and has not advanced any argument to induce me to hold that the notices (exhibits 1 and 1(a)) were valid notices. This finding of the learned Subordinate Judge must also, therefore, be accepted.

8. Mr. Roy has challenged findings Nos. (v) and (vi) above, and has argued that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in passing a decree for eviction against the defendant-appellant. In my judgment, there is substance in this point. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Niranjan Pal V/s. Chaitanyalal Ghosh, AIR 1964 Pat 401 (FB) that the determination of a tenancy is necessary before a landlord can take action under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Contr