The grounds for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, and the validity of remittance of rent by postal money order under Section 13(1) of the Act.

Shambhu Prasad Singh, J.

1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for eviction from a house situate in the town of Dehri-on-Sone and for arrears of rent. Eviction was claimed on all the possible grounds available, namely, personal necessity, default In payment of rent for the months of October and November, 1962, expiry of the term of the lease and also breach of the conditions of the tenancy. The defendants-respondents denied all the allegations. According to them, there was no personal necessity, there was no default in payment, of the rents for the months of October and November, 1962 which, were remitted by postal money order, there was no breach, of any of the conditions of the tenancy end the tenancy not being for a fixed term there was no question of expiry of the lease. The suit has been decreed so far as arrears of rent are concerned, but has been dismissed in respect of the claim for eviction. On all the questions relating to eviction both the Courts below have concurrently found against the appellants.

2. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the findings of the Courts below on the questions of personal necessity, default and breach of condition of the tenancy were wrong. The personal necessity alleged and pressed in the Courts below was that the appellants required at least a portion of the land on which, the house was situated for constructing another house on the vacant land behind the house which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the present suit. Such a necessity cannot be a ground for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). Sec.11 of the Act lays down the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. He cannot be evicted on grounds not mentioned in that section. The ground commonly known as personal necessity is stated in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.11 which reads as follows:-

-

"Where the building is reasonably end in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord".

It is manifest from the language of this clause that if the landlord does not require the building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by him. he cannot get the tenant evicted on the ground of personal necessity. Thus. the Courts below do not appear to have committed any mistake in recording a finding against the appellants on this question.

3. It was urged by the appellants in the Courts below that the respondents committed breach of conditions of the tenancy as they constructed a cow-shed. It was denied by the respondents and the Courts below have accepted the case of the respondents. Apart from it unless it is alleged and proved that there was a contract between the landlord and the tenant that the tenant cannot make even any temporary constructions on the premises, that cannot be a ground for eviction because there being no such condition there cannot be any breach of it, The relevant clause of Sec.11 (1) dealing with breach of the conditions of the tenancy is Clause (a) and there is nothing in it on the basis of which it can be said that a tenant in absence of an express condition is not entitled to make temporary constructions. The matter will be governed by general law, i.e., Transfer of Property Act. The Courts below, therefore, do not appear to have erred is holding against the appellants even on the question of breach of the conditions of the tenancy.

4. The main point urged by learned counsel for the appellants which, it appears, led to reference of this case to the Division Bench, is on the question of default Clause (d) of Sec.11 (1) of the Act provides that where the amount of two months rent lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within the time fixed by contract, or in the absenc