Rent is an essential ingredient of a lease and must be fixed and certain. In the absence of an agreement between the parties or determination by the Controller under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, no valid lease is created.

B.D.Singh, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 62 of 1962. First Appeal No. 360 of 1964 is at the instance or Ramayan Saran, Principal and Secretary, Patna Public School, who was defendant in the suit, being aggrieved by the order of the Court below directing eviction of the defendant from the ten stalls (Nos. 55 to 64) owned by the Patna Improvement Trust and located in Block No, 4 at Rajendra Nagar, in which the defendant was running the school. First Appeal No. 418 of 1964 is at the instance of the Patna Improvement Trust through its Chairman, who was plaintiff in the suit since the Court below refused to grant a decree for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 17,580-89 P. as claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Both these appeals have been heard together since they arise out of the same judgment and decree and this common judgment will govern both of them.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the 3rd July, 1962, alleging, inter alia, that on the 29th December, 1960, the defendant approached the plaintiff for fifteen vacant rooms in the Central Market No. 4 at Rajendra Nagar for holding classes of his school for one year, and the plaintiff agreed to allot ten stalls numbering 55 to 64 along with the side rooms, meant for shop-cum-building, in Block No. 4, described under Schedule III of the plaint. On the 30th of December, I960, the defendant was inducted into the said stalls at the rates of rents and taxes as per statement given in Schedule I of the plaint. In spite of demand, the defendant did not pay any rent or taxes amounting to Rupees 17,580-89 P. as per details given in Schedule II of the plaint. The defendant also refused to vacate the stalls although the period of one year expired on the 31st December, 1961, the plaintiff further alleged that the stalls were let out to the defendant for the purpose of holding classes of the school, but the defendant began to convert them into hostel and for messing arrangement which was clearly a breach of the terms and conditions of the tenancy and claimed, mainly, two reliefs: (1) a decree directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the stalls described in Schedule III, and (2) a decree for Rs. 17,580-89 P. as detailed under Schedule II.

3. The defendant contested the suit and also filed written statement alleging, inter alia, therein that the suit as framed was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no cause of action. He further alleged that no rent whatsoever was fixed for the stalls in question at the time of allotment and it was agreed that rent would be fixed later on in due course. He also stated in the written statement that the defendant was surprised to receive all of a sud- den the letter of the plaintiff, dated the 3rd July, 1961, along with a copy of the resolution dated the 31st May, 1961, showing that the rent of the stalls had been fixed at Rs. 1034-17 P. per month. He alleged that the said rate of rent was fixed behind his back and he had never agreed to pay rent at the said rate.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Court below:

1. Has the plaintiff got any valid cause of action for the suit?

2. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

3. Was there any legal rent fixed for the stall in question?

4. Is the defendant a defaulter within the meaning of the B.B.C. Act?

5. Is plaintiff entitled to evict the defendant from the stalls in question?

6. To what relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled?

The parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Court below held that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action for eviction of the defendant on the ground of the expiration of the period of the lease, but it found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any arrear of rent.

5. Mr. Kaushal Kishore Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ramayan Saran, Principal of the School, supported the f