Back
2007 Supreme(Pat) 1054
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Hussain, J.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Versus
Rajeshwar Prasad
C.R. No. 2089 of 1999 ;
Decided On : JULY 3, 2007
Headnote:Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982-Section 14(8)-Eviction Suit-Suit on the grounds of expiry of fixed, period of lease and personal necessity-Issues fully proved and decided in favour of plaintiff-O.P.-Even if the business of retail outlet is in partnership, the plaintiff being one of the co-landlord has full right to file the suit for eviction for his bonafide personal necessity. (Paras 14 & 15)
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982-Section 2(b) & 14(8)-Eviction Suit-Several constructions standing on the land in question-It is covered by the definition of building u/s 2(b) of the Act and as such provisions of the Act will be applicable. (Para 16)
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982-Section 14(8)-Eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity and expiry of fixed period of lease-Tenant on sufferance-Period of lease admittedly expired-Acceptance of rent from tenant by landlord after expiration of contractual tenancy does not mean that the landlord has assented to a new contractual tenancy-On the determination of lease due to its expiry, it is the duty of the lessee to vacate the lease hold but if he continues and the landlord accepts the rent, he becomes a tenant on sufferance and holds merely through the laches of the landlord.
(Para 17)
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982-Section 14(8)-Eviction suit on the grounds of personal necessity and expiry of lease period-Civil Revision-advantage of partial eviction cannot be availed by a tenant in a Civil Revision under the provisions of the Act when the suit is filed on composite grounds and decreed-Civil Revision dismissed. (Para 19)
AIR 1981 SC 1400, 1987 PLJR 582, AIR 1989 SC 758, AIR 1976 SC 2335, 1984 PLJR 102, AIR 2001 SC 1387, 2000 (2) PLJR 865, AIR 1961 SC 1067, 1969 BLJR 850, 1980 PLJR 195 (FB), 1998 (1) PLJR 274, 2006 (4) PLJR 346, 1942 (2) PLJR 846-Referred to.
S.N.HUSSAIN, J.
1. This Civil Revision has been filed under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) by the defendants against judgment/order of their eviction dated 12.08.1999 by which the learned Munsif, I. Hajipur (Vaishali) decreed Eviction Suit No.01 of 1999 which was filed by the sole opposite party.
2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole opposite party for eviction of the petitioners (defendants) on the grounds of expiry of the fixed period of lease as well as personal necessity of the landlord (opposite party) with respect to the suit premises for opening a business of his family.
3. The claim of the plaintiff-opposite party was that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from the original owner Ram Khelawan Rai by registered sale deed dated 14.08.1958, whereas the adjacent northern land was purchased by plaintiffs brother Shyam Prasad and they started a petrol pump outlet in partnership in the said purchased premises. Plaintiff also averred that subsequently by a deed of lease dated 30.5.1962 (Ext-2) they leased their property to Caltex India Limited and the said deed of lease was signed by the aforesaid Shyam Prasad and Rajeshwar Prasad (plaintiff) as well as by the then Manager of the said Company on its behalf. It was also plaintiffs claim that the said lease was for only a period of ten years and its rent was fixed at Rs. 210.00 per month payable by the 5th of every succeeding English calendar month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 327.00 per month.
4. It was further claimed by the plaintiff that in the meantime the father of the plaintiff Gauri Shanker Sah died and the defendant, namely Caltex India Limited and its Manager (defendants) did not vacate the suit premises, although 30 years expired in the year 1992 and the defendants stopped payment of rent to the plaintiff and had become defaulters. It was also averred by the plaintiff that his son and grand-son had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises as they wanted to start their own business of motor parts for which the locality was best suited and the plaintiff had the means to bear the expenses for opening such a shop, but inspite of plaintiffs lawyers notice, the defendants refused to vacate the suit premises. However, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants only on the grounds of expiry of fixed period of lease and personal necessity reserving his right to file another suit for other reliefs as stated in paragraphs 9, 14 and 15 of the plaint.
5. Notices were issued to the defendants-petitioners by ordinary processes as well as by registered post, but inspite of that the defendants did not appear in the suit and hence the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing and was finally heard ex parte. The plaintiff adduced four witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 was the plaintiff himself who proved the expiry of lease and bonafide personal requirement. The plaintift also produced several documents, out of which Ext-1 series were Government rent receipts, Ext-2 was the deed of agreement dated 30.05.1962, Ext-3 series were notices, Ext-4 was the acknowledgment receipt and Ext-5 was the sale deed dated 14.08.1959 executed by the original owner Ram Khelawan Rai in favour of the plaintiff.
6. Considering the claim of the plaintiff, learned Trial Court framed three issues;
(i) Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant?
(ii) Whether the defendants are defaulters in payment of rent?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff had personal necessity of the suit premises?
7. It appears that issue no. II was framed by the learned trial court in confusion as instead of that it should have framed an issue regarding expiry of fixed period of lease as per the claim of the plaintiff. However, since the suit for eviction was not filed on the ground of default in pa
